Mayor Fines Self For Email Misuse

from the setting-an-example dept

Mon, Jun 19th 2006 12:48pm — Mike Masnick

A few months ago in New York City, there was some controversy over Mayor Bloomberg's decision to have an employee fired for playing solitaire on a city computer, leading some to wonder if Bloomberg never once took care of personal business on city time. However, the mayor of Newark, Ohio, apparently did -- but recognized the error of his own ways and fined himself $368 for sending personal emails from work. Of course, the problem here was most likely not the fact that the emails were personal, but the nature of the emails: asking people to get involved with his son's business. In other words, rather than just freaking out about any personal business being done during work hours, the focus was (as it should be) on the nature of the personal use, and whether it interfered with legitimate work.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2006 @ 12:54pm

What a scam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- monkey!, 19 Jun 2006 @ 1:13pm
  
  Re:
  I believe this to be both a well thought out public relations ploy for future support, and an honest attempt at leading by example. both of which seem righteous enough given the mansposition
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2006 @ 1:13pm
  
  Re:
  What a cowardly act; anonymously calling it a scam! You should be ashamed! And horse-whipped.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2006 @ 3:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ...we need a horse first
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lisa, 19 Jun 2006 @ 1:35pm

Why do people act like email is the first instance of taking care of private business on work time? Haven't people been leaving work to run errands, having social lunches, and making personal calls from their desks for decades? Then suddenly when someone uses a new product (i.e. a computer) to commit a very old transgression, it's a federal case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin, 19 Jun 2006 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re: Email
  Lisa,, so well put. This is far from anything new. It's just another way to look at how our society interacts. It is interesting to think that given current security risks, standards , most all people know they are being monitored in some way shape or form. Every email ends up somewhere other than it's predetermined desitnation and saved until needed someday. Still people do this with a regularity that is mind boggling. Even when they sign a form stating that they are being monitored and can be terminated for any computer use considered or obviously not work specific related. It's almost like a DNA of sorts. Great comment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam, 19 Jun 2006 @ 1:43pm

Now I'm confused...
This guys a politician, but seems to be honest. He fined himself for breaking the rules, and doesn't seem to have an ulterior motive. I suppose he could be going for a Streisand Effect, where this news will increase interest in the e-mails that prompted the fine. Those e-mails were for his son's business, so that seems a plausible theory. But now we have a politician using foresight and pseudo-viral marketing, so I'm confused again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven M, 19 Jun 2006 @ 2:00pm

Bunch of idiots
He fined himself? This must be his way of saying, "Hey look at me, I do as much work as the guy playing solataire, I should be fired too".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean, 19 Jun 2006 @ 2:04pm

Bloomberg
I believe Bloomberg admitted that he occasionally goofed off at work, and said that was important to recharge your batteries. He was pissed that the employee was stupid enough to do it right in front of him.

This mayor is either really honest, or trying to appear really honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullBull, 19 Jun 2006 @ 2:43pm

Influence Peddling
I like how the issues of nepotism and influence peddling are glossed right over. Soliciting for your son's business while acting as mayor is a lot more about "scratch my (son's) back and I'll scratch yours" than it is about whether or not he's wasting the taxpayer dollars that pay his salary.

PS - How many are posting from work, right now? I'll fess up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republican Gun, 19 Jun 2006 @ 2:52pm

Shenanigans!
Using a position of power to aid in a family member's business is a big conflict of interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JerseyRich, 19 Jun 2006 @ 3:01pm

I post from work all the time.

Of course, I am a salaried employee and I stay until the work gets done, and that might include nights and weekends, if necessary. So, no harm done (IMHO).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2006 @ 3:07pm

Bullshit. He fires a guy for playing solitaire, but only fines himself $386 for sending emails. Equal punishment my ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sbbrian, 19 Jun 2006 @ 3:39pm

I agree this is all BS. FIRE THE MAN NOW!
Who's to say $386 is proper punishment!
Screw him I think he should be fined $386,000 for what he has done. Since when are we able to determine what our fine should be. I wonder what my local Police department would think if I showed up and said I was drinking and driving the other day, and I’m here to fine myself $5.00.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leo, 19 Jun 2006 @ 4:32pm

Mayor Fines Self for Email Misuse
if i were to catch myself using an email for personal use while at work, and then tell my boss that i was going to fine myself, he/she would take away that assumed 'option' by simply firing me instead. i would have no say-so in the matter whatsoever. am i the ONLY person to notice that the mayor has conveniently and automatically granted himself that 'option' without consulting anyone else about it? that is not fair. he is only fooling the fools. he certainly isn't 'honest John'. if he truly meant to be fair about it, he would have asked someone else, a 'judge' over him, to levy the fine and/or sentence instead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam, 19 Jun 2006 @ 10:49pm

Now I'm really confused...
Is the opinion really going that he should have just kept his mouth shut? People wonder why we have dishonest politicians, whenever we get one who does something honest, we rip him a new one for it.

@Anonymous Coward from Post #13:
Different mayor. Newark, Ohio != New York City. I know that Newark and New York kind of sound the same if you mumble, but they aren't.

@sbbrian:
If you showed up at the Police Station to confess to drunken driving, they would be confused, because that would probably be the first time that had happened to them. You wouldn't be arrested for saying it, and you probably wouldn't be arrested even if you said it again after they had read you your rights. They'd call in the boss, who'd thank you for your honesty, and accept your $5 as a slap on the wrist. After all, how the hell are they going to prove this isn't just some prank?

@Leo:
If you fessed up instead of being caught, you might very well keep your job. As long as you weren't responsible for some debilitating virus or other horrible thing hitting the company, they'd probably keep you, and mark your record as having a near-obsessively guilty conscience. Then they'd keep you on, because it's so hard to find employees that trustworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sbbrian, 20 Jun 2006 @ 9:49am

@ADAM
Yes, I’m saying he should have kept his mouth shut!
Dishonest politicians/people will always exist he can’t change that. Just because he confessed to asking people to get involved with his son's business/misuse of Email and taxpayer money does not mean that I trust him any more that the other person that was just playing Solitaire! It is weather the punishment fit the crime for both situations. I’m sure if the other person that was playing solitaire had the option to keep his job and pay a fine he would have just paid a fine. Unfortunately there is no such Legal option in my State and any other State in this country for anyone of us to choose our own punishment we see fit so why should he have this luxury.
The people of Newark Ohio should see that he no longer Stands in office another day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bryan Price, 20 Jun 2006 @ 5:08pm

Funny and interesting
This is funny to me, as a former resident of Newark, Ohio.

It also hits home a bit, as I remember as a public employee and as the administrator of a 3Com 3+Share network, I had to monitor somebody's e-mail account for awhile. While it's been quite a number of years (over 10 now), nothing went on much at all. They were expecting harrasment of an employee, and got gossip, nothing more, nothing less.

The biggest blowup I had to handle was the fact that certain people were sending unrelated e-mails to everybody on the network, when it really needed to only go to just a few. Nothing like getting asked if anybody wanted a kitten -- from across the state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]