Gallaudet under fire after official placed on leave over ballot signature

[Jiro]

btw Steinhauer - not sure why you're calling me a counselor and feeling very combative. umad bro?

this is not me being Mr. Know-It-All. don't need to be a lawyer to know this stuff. I thought this whole thing is basic 101 thing that every employee knows. I know my rights, laws, and policy protocols because well - I guess I've been working in corporate and university settings for perhaps bit too long now...

no need to get all antsy about it. either you can prove me wrong with facts or you can't..... simple as that. if there's anything factually wrong with my post, please do correct me. other than that..... sssssssshhhhhh and be a good boy.

 

[Steinhauer]

that depends on how the name was obtained. Valerie Plume thing? yea that was a treason.

but in this case, that faculty member had already talked to press and asked to remain anonymous. to release the name would be a breach of journalism ethics.

so Steinhauer... how did you obtain the name?

Is this an interrogatorie counselor?

 

[Jiro]

Is this an interrogatorie counselor?

yes. I'm asking you a question. how did you obtain such a confidential information like... a name of complainant? The press didn't release his/her name unless I missed it. McCaskill didn't release his/her name unless I missed it. The administration certainly didn't release it unless I missed it.

 

[TXgolfer]

that's not what happened in here. perhaps you're in a wrong thread?


I just presented facts along with federal laws and university policy. You presented opinions along with... uh... quibblings.

fact > opinion

1) Yes, McCaskill was confronted by the faculty member....she was subsequently reported.

2) You claimed in Post 166 that McCaskill could face criminal penalties for breaking confidentiality. That alone would not be a crime. Would it violate University policy? Probably, I never questioned that. However even the links you provided state that the University can not ensure confidentiality.

 

[Steinhauer]

btw Steinhauer - not sure why you're calling me a counselor and feeling very combative. umad bro?

this is not me being Mr. Know-It-All. don't need to be a lawyer to know this stuff. I thought this whole thing is basic 101 thing that every employee knows. I know my rights, laws, and policy protocols because well - I guess I've been working in corporate and university settings for perhaps bit too long now...

no need to get all antsy about it. either you can prove me wrong with facts or you can't..... simple as that. if there's anything factually wrong with my post, please do correct me. other than that..... sssssssshhhhhh and be a good boy.

No, I am not mad. I think it is funny that you are acting like an attorney that's all.

 

[TXgolfer]

but in this case, that faculty member had already talked to press and asked to remain anonymous. to release the name would be a breach of journalism ethics.

Exactly

 

[TXgolfer]

yes. I'm asking you a question. how did you obtain such a confidential information like... a name of complainant? The press didn't release his/her name unless I missed it. McCaskill didn't release his/her name unless I missed.

Officially, that is....

 

[Steinhauer]

Officially, that is....

Apparently Jiro is quite unfamiliar with how the grapevine works at Gally

I know that Attorney J. Wyndal Gordon is quite capable of representing Dr. McCaskill. He has quite an impressive resume.

 

[Jiro]

No, I am not mad. I think it is funny that you are acting like an attorney that's all.

sounds like what I've said so far is factually correct.

 

[Jiro]

1) Yes, McCaskill was confronted by the faculty member....she was subsequently reported.

gotcha.

2) You claimed in Post 166 that McCaskill could face criminal penalties for breaking confidentiality. That alone would not be a crime.

right. notice the qualifier.

Would it violate University policy? Probably, I never questioned that. However even the links you provided state that the University can not ensure confidentiality.

that's why there are policy and laws to deal with breach of confidentiality.

 

[Jiro]

Apparently Jiro is quite unfamiliar with how the grapevine works at Gally

looks like university will have to address that and fix it immediately otherwise it's just asking for legal/civil liability at any time.

I know that Attorney J. Wyndal Gordon is quite capable of representing Dr. McCaskill. He has quite an impressive resume.

that's cool

 

[TXgolfer]

sounds like what I've said so far is factually correct.

You are certainly entitled to believe that. I am sure most people here are capable of deciding for themselves. Hopefully the situation will be worked out there.

 

[Jiro]

You are certainly entitled to believe that. I am sure most people here are capable of deciding for themselves.

*shrug*

no one asked for your opinion. you can either prove me wrong or not.

Hopefully the situation will be worked out there.

that's what I've been saying few pages ago. all these incessant quibblings and being armchair experts... quite comical. don't know why we can't just simply wait for press conference in the morning.

 

[TXgolfer]

gotcha.


right. notice the qualifier.


that's why there are policy and laws to deal with breach of confidentiality.

1) Yep, I misquoted..... You said actually said "would" rather than "could"

2) Laws? Other than the possibility of "breach of contract" (civil) it's a stretch. Shame is, if you would have started with "university policy" "potential termination" from the beginning, you would have had a very valid argument as to why McCaskill has not publicly released the name of her accuser. I would have agreed with it.

 

[Jiro]

1) Yep, I misquoted..... You said actually said "would" rather than "could"

2) Laws? Other than the possibility of "breach of contract" (civil) it's a stretch. Shame is, if you would have started with "university policy" "potential termination" from the beginning, you would have had a very valid argument as to why McCaskill has not publicly released the name of her accuser. I would have agreed with it.

*shrug*

Post #184 and Post #186. if you disagree, that's fine.

 

[TXgolfer]

*shrug*

no one asked for your opinion. you can either prove me wrong or not.


that's what I've been saying few pages ago. all these incessant quibblings and being armchair experts... quite comical. don't know why we can't just simply wait for press conference in the morning.

1) IMO and the opinion of a few others I have spoken with....I have.

2) This is a forum, those get pretty boring without discussion. Just blank white pages. As for quibbling, it takes 2 to tango....But in this thread I haven't seen it.

 

[TXgolfer]

*shrug*

Post #184 and Post #186. if you disagree, that's fine.

184 is University policies...not law

186 is vague legal references that require an asumption about the persons intent. Releasing the name of your accuser in this situation would not, in itself, be a crime.

 

[Jiro]

1) IMO and the opinion of a few others I have spoken with....I have.

2) This is a forum, those get pretty boring without discussion. Just blank white pages. As for quibbling, it takes 2 to tango....But in this thread I haven't seen it.

right. this is a forum with rules.

ie. repeating "you are entitled to your opinion" is both against the rules and boring.

8.) Members may not scroll unnecessarily. Scrolling can refer to the following:

a.) Excessive quoting
b.) Excessive smilies, pictures
c.) Marquee images, text (scrolling horizontally)
d.) Anything that is repetitious

rules are there to ensure that discussions stay interesting and unfettered by quibblers. so stop boring us

 

[Jiro]

184 is University policies...not law

186 is vague legal references that require an asumption about the persons intent. Releasing the name of your accuser in this situation would not, in itself, be a crime.

perhaps you should expand further and try checking DOL and OCR since Galluadet University receives federal funding.

But did you miss this post?

yes. I'm asking you a question. how did you obtain such a confidential information like... a name of complainant? The press didn't release his/her name unless I missed it. McCaskill didn't release his/her name unless I missed it. The administration certainly didn't release it unless I missed it.

now that you have stated that McCaskill was confronted by the faculty member and she was subsequently reported.... but is complainant's name a public knowledge? why is it that it takes a grapevine to find a name as claimed by Steinhauer?

Both administration and press didn't release the name to public (unless I missed it). To publicly release the name (typically thru mass media) especially by a person under investigation can still be subjected to criminal and civil liability depending on motive and situation.

if McCaskill released the name with intention to cause emotional distress on her... that's illegal.
if McCaskill released the name in a negligent manner, that's illegal.

 

[TXgolfer]

right. this is a forum with rules.

ie. repeating "you are entitled to your opinion" is both against the rules and boring.



rules are there to ensure that discussions stay interesting and unfettered by quibblers. so stop boring us

That phrase has only been used once in this thread. Besides it is a friendly phrase that encourages a way of moving on....much like agreeing to disagree. I wouldn't think the site administrators would want to discourage people from being friendly.