He sure does love the word 'pukes'.

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

I have a real problem with a public official that lists her private e-mail address and is having it screened by an un-elected person.

He's a liability.

Never in the history of Scranton politics have I ever heard of someone's spouse being an issue. Good for you Dave - you're the first. Mayor Evans? Not while you're in the house. Bank on it.

What I find truly funny about this guy ... is that he contacted me ... sent me mail first ... I responded and sent copies ... and he's telling me not to contact him again ... Art sent an email to him asking questions ... he answered and then tells him not to send anymore ... and for some reason he tells Art to stop contacting him also ..

Dave you should have never sent out the first email if you did not want people to respond to it ...

I want to also say to Dave ... I never claimed to be the smartest person in the world so you writing that I am "Your Admindoesn't seem to bright either. I never received a sparklit email unless it went to junk mail andI deleted it. Either way, It don't mean a thing. Bye.
David Evans" .... means absolutely nothing to me .... I really don't care what you think about me ... you are nothing and nobody of importance to me ... my only problem with you is the fact that you think you know who I am ... and well it's quite clear that you don't have a clue!

You are the one without a clue ... and you in my opinion are quite unstable ...

You monitor your wife's email ... now why would you do that? Do you not trust her? Is there reason for you not to trust your beloved wife? Does she have reason not to trust you?

That e-mail address is listed on the City Council website as her "official" contact e-mail. As such, his screening of that account should constitute fraud. On his part for actually doing it, and on her part for allowing it to continue. No one elected him to anything, yet by screening her e-mail, that address in particular which is a personal repository for city business and other information to which a spouse and un-elected official should not be privvy, who knows how much city business he's interfered with?

And the fact remains, as mentioned in a previous thread, she's openly violating her terms of services agreement with Verizon. She expects to be trusted by a majority of voters in this town when she can't even adhere to a simple e-mail user agreement?

-- Edited by Paul at 13:43, 2007-08-10

I wonder if Actual Attorney Cashuric has any thoughts on the matter. I'd trust his opinion more than I would a carpenter's on matters of law.

Not that I'm going to rush on out and file a lawsuit or anything (as if I'd be able to get a spot on the docket this year. Thanks a lot, Joe...), I'm just musing out loud.

She's the one who's quick to call for a recall because of "corruption". Seems to me that you and Lus are holding actual proof of corruption, rather than mere heresay and opinions.

Again, I'm not sayng it'll forceEvans' resignation or anything (if only...), but I'd like to see her defend herself when presented with actual physical evidence of malfeasance (the apparent new favorite word over at DD. I can hear Dwight Schrute say "malfeasance for malfeasances sake" everytime I see that word...).

Perhaps I will...now wouldn't that turn the tables and raise a few eyebrows. Someone like me is her worst nightmare - I can read a letter and discuss an issue, raise a few questions, plant a few seeds without having a Patilla-esque meltdown and getting the gavel.

Tell you what - if she doesn't address the issue before then - in print, online, tv or radio - I will speak on 9/11. If she explains why her husband edits her e-mail from her constituents then I'll stand down.

I've got it covered, I'm a trained professional.

"I have some concerns about the integrity of citizen email to council...(read the e-mails)

"...I am not in a position to prove fraud or deceit, but it's obvious that there is a major breech in ethics and judgment. I defer to the trained professionals in the solicitors office to weigh in on the matter."

Something like that. I would never allow myself to be gaveled.

What issue am I offering my opinion on here? If it concerns the e-mail issue, it is not a government-sponsored or controlled mailbox. She is offering the use of her personal property to assist the residents in contacting her more easily. And even then, giving Dutch access is not forbidden because after all, they are married. I don't see any sign of fraud.

Now, one cannot use the mailbox for threatening anybody, no matter whose ownership it is. But, she would have to have knowledge of the threat and participate to be held personally liable.

But I'm just a tax attorney, don't forget...

GC

Glenn Cashuric wrote:

---

What issue am I offering my opinion on here? If it concerns the e-mail issue, it is not a government-sponsored or controlled mailbox. She is offering the use of her personal property to assist the residents in contacting her more easily.

---

Any insight would be appreciated, Glen, and we're certainly not going to take it as Gospel or hang our hats on it, so to speak. Just looking for an opinion, I guess. I, personally, have no plans on filing a lawsuit. This town really doesn't need anymore at this point...

Would the fact that she offered her personal e-mail address, rather than using the @scranton(dot)gov address provided to and published by everyone else on Council (and most of the rest of City government for that matter), make it a de facto government e-mail address? And as a de facto government e-mail address, what business does her husband have accessing it?

Surely he could have sent the same e-mail address from his own account, and we'd probably have little issue with it, and a hearty laugh to boot. He chose to use her address for it, in violation of her agreement with Verizon, and in violation of the public trust placed in her.

What's to say Janet didn't pen the e-mails (outside of the piss-poor grammar and sentence structure)? We're all pretty confident that it wasn't her, but there is no longer a reasonable expectation that we as citizens can send her an e-mail in confidence. He obviously knows her password. Common internet etiquette tells you never to reveal your password to anyone.Who else knows her password? Who else did Dave share the password with? As Joe is fond of saying, you judge the character of the person based on the company they keep. Dave isn't reflecting very well on her character, is he?

It's pretty much a matter of trust at this point. She's violated the citizens trust in her (rather, Dave has violated our trust in Janet).

I suppose these are issues that should be addressed in council. Seems to me that this is now cuity business, since it's the e-mail address she uses to conduct city business that's being called into question.


-- Edited by Paul at 22:41, 2007-08-10

Another way to look at the issue is simply this:

If I send an e-mail to Janet Evans - a private, perhaps even politically sensitive e-mail, I now have to worry about a non-elected official reading my personal correspondence with an elected official. Perhaps even deciding whether or not to let her read it. Despite legality, it's most certainly and ethics issue.

Ah. Well, now you've brought up the issues of privacy and trust.

Yes, the average citizen probably feels that his or her e-mail should be protected by at least the illusion of confidentiality. Knowing that your private concerns may very well go to someone not under any legal obligation to keep them private may be of concern to people.

At this point, she probably should start a dedicated government e-mail address for official city business. Her supporters and friends can still opt to use the personal e-mail address, of course. But I would feel more comfortable (objectively) that the whole family didn't have access to my e-mails.

I have a feeling this is going to be a very public issue very shortly...just a hunch, mind you.

GC

Privacy and the internet aren't exactly terms that go well together. Regardless, all I can do his hope that this becomes a very public issue shortly. Contrary to what you may read at DD, Janet Evans should not be above the same level of scrutiny applied to everyone else in city government. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a rude awakening.

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

All we have done by discussing this here (instead of in pm's) is to give the troops across the hall a head's up and a chance to circle the wagons around their girl.

You are probably right Girl and that thought crossed my mind as well, but I decided I am ok with that as we are not DD and playing "gotcha" is not our game. We did not scratch around looking for some flaw to jump all over, Daveyboy started this by contacting Lus all on his own. Why he felt the need to do it I don't know, but Dave Evans began this event, had he not used Little Missy Jan's e-mail and then sent another e-mail (again on Little Missy Jan's account) tooting his horn about "monitoring" her e-mail none of this would have happened. So I guess what I am saying is I am ok with this playing itself out, naturally. If that gives them a heads up so be it. However, I love how that fact that someone forwarded a political e-mail during work (which by the way I also don't think should be done. Workat work and play politics after work.) and they are ready to call in the national guard to have this person taken away in chains. What Davey did...not a sound out of them! Oh ya Joey and the goonsdon't protect her..RIGHT! hypocrits!