Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 12/22/2016 View Wed 12/21/2016 View Tue 12/20/2016 View Mon 12/19/2016 View Sun 12/18/2016 View Sat 12/17/2016 View Fri 12/16/2016
1
2016-12-22 Home Front: Politix
EPA Employees Not ‘Intentionally' Breaking Law By Deleting Official Texts, IG Claims
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Frank G 2016-12-22 11:09|| || Front Page|| [1 views ]  Top

#1 ..I believe he is using Comey's definition of 'intent'. Seems to be a pattern.

On the other hand, misuse a word or term that might be misconstrued as racist or sexist, then there is no concern about 'intent' by this same crowd.
Posted by Procopius2k  2016-12-22 11:30||   2016-12-22 11:30|| Front Page Top

#2 Yeah... because that defense would work so well with the rest of us....
Posted by DarthVader 2016-12-22 11:48||   2016-12-22 11:48|| Front Page Top

#3 The FOIA is based on laws mandating archiving messages with penalties for noncompliance. This would be an excellent reason to start RIF'ing the deadwood atop the EPA -- Retire or be fired.
Posted by magpie 2016-12-22 11:59||   2016-12-22 11:59|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm of two minds with "Public Records".

I don't believe text messages that *individuals* send arise to the level of a "public record". I think that *mass* text messages (wherein an agency employee sends out a text to more than one employee) ARE "public records", and should be preserved as such by the sender.

Since one person texting another (in my view) doesn't arise to the level of a "public record", I also don't think it should shield anyone from wrongdoing. For example, an employee shouldn't be able to claim immunity from an action by asserting that his boss "texted me that it was ok to proceed". "Public records" should include the policy manuals for the given agency and all email correspondance (yes Hillary, even about yoga classes), but not singular trading of text messages between two individuals.

There should also be a clear understanding that "we" (the given agency) neither make nor interpret policy decisions by text message.
Posted by Crusader 2016-12-22 12:20||   2016-12-22 12:20|| Front Page Top

#5 Now you injecting common sense into the conversation.

I work for a very large multinational corperation and we are bascally told two rules.

Dont put anything in email you would not want seen, out of context, on the front page of the New York Times the next morning.

Don't delete any emails. In fact emails are auto-archived by the system. You can't entirely delete emails without some extraordinary effort.

My guess is that the EPA intentionally does not auto archive for obvious reasons.
Posted by CrazyFool 2016-12-22 12:39||   2016-12-22 12:39|| Front Page Top

#6 Maybe we can ask the Russians for them. Heh(tm)
Posted by Procopius2k  2016-12-22 17:39||   2016-12-22 17:39|| Front Page Top

#7 I was under the impression that all government agencies had everything backed up to a secure backup in case of major disruption. If so things could be retrieved from the backup.

If not, why not.
Posted by rjschwarz 2016-12-22 20:22||   2016-12-22 20:22|| Front Page Top

#8 ...er..same reason to stick a server in a hallway closet? To avoid FOIA requests.
Posted by Procopius2k  2016-12-22 21:03||   2016-12-22 21:03|| Front Page Top

23:43 Rob Crawford
21:44 Frank G
21:36 Blossom Unains5562
21:34 Jeasing Creque5352
21:31 Blossom Unains5562
21:30 Frank G
21:25 Blossom Unains5562
21:14 Blossom Unains5562
21:03 Procopius2k
20:49 Rex Mundi
20:41 Rex Mundi
20:36 Shinegum Whereck9932
20:22 rjschwarz
20:21 rjschwarz
20:15 Skidmark
20:06 DarthVader
20:05 Skidmark
19:52 Barbara
19:14 Frank G
19:14 Frank G
19:01 charger
18:50 charger
18:06 swksvolFF
17:58 Iblis









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com