Monday, May 10, 2004
Mail Fraud
Remember how Willard Mitt's National Guard chief admitted to using taxpayer funded computer equipment to send messages that some saw as advocating flag-burning? (source: Boston Herald, 4/30/2004)
And how that personal use of state-controlled e-mail was defended by Willard Mitt's minions who claimed that 'no rules were broken' and that "there is no prohibition against using state e-mail accounts to send personal correspondence"? (source: Boston Globe, 5/1/2004)
Well look what the Rat dragged in.
'Sources say' that not too long ago, Team Reform claimed a DMH employee used their official e-mail to send personal information to other state employees, and was punished with a one-day suspension.
The information that the DMH employee (who happened to be a union steward) sent was not sedious, traitorous, or political in nature. It simply discussed the Fraud Governor's House I submission, and how the budget could impact DMH.
In short, it was a policy message.
Yet, despite the fact that "there is no prohibition against using state e-mail accounts to send personal correspondence," the DMH employee was subjected to a suspension.
Too bad the DMH employee's message did not include any suggested assaults on the US flag. Rather than a suspension, the Fraud Governor probably would have handed out a promotion and a raise.
Remember how Willard Mitt's National Guard chief admitted to using taxpayer funded computer equipment to send messages that some saw as advocating flag-burning? (source: Boston Herald, 4/30/2004)
And how that personal use of state-controlled e-mail was defended by Willard Mitt's minions who claimed that 'no rules were broken' and that "there is no prohibition against using state e-mail accounts to send personal correspondence"? (source: Boston Globe, 5/1/2004)
Well look what the Rat dragged in.
'Sources say' that not too long ago, Team Reform claimed a DMH employee used their official e-mail to send personal information to other state employees, and was punished with a one-day suspension.
The information that the DMH employee (who happened to be a union steward) sent was not sedious, traitorous, or political in nature. It simply discussed the Fraud Governor's House I submission, and how the budget could impact DMH.
In short, it was a policy message.
Yet, despite the fact that "there is no prohibition against using state e-mail accounts to send personal correspondence," the DMH employee was subjected to a suspension.
Too bad the DMH employee's message did not include any suggested assaults on the US flag. Rather than a suspension, the Fraud Governor probably would have handed out a promotion and a raise.
