Subject:   Draft Charge on E-mail Privacy
Date:    Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:53:27 -0400
From:  "Martha A. Cotter" <cotter@rutchem.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Rutgers University Chemistry Department
To: Ken Swalagin <swalagin@rci.rutgers.edu>
CC: Robert Boikess <boikess@rutchem.rutgers.edu>, Jerry Scheinbeim <jis@RCI.Rutgers.EDU>,
             Paul Panayotatos <panayot@ece.rutgers.edu>

Dear Ken,

   At the request of Jerry Scheinbeim, AAUP President, and Bob Boikess, Chair of the AAUP Negotiating Team, I would like to request that the Senate Executive Committee charge the appropriate Senate Committee (Faculty Affairs and Personnel?) to look into the question of university policy and practices with regard to privacy of e-mail communications of members of the university community.

   Our serious concerns regarding this matter arose from the administration negotiating team's response to the AAUP team's request that they assure us that they would not read our e-mails related to negotiations.  The ambiguous, highly circumscribed answer to that request raised more general concerns and led, finally, to the following series of questions we posed to the administration team:

1. There are statements related to e-mail privacy in three documents that can readily be accessed from the RUCS website; namely, "Acceptable Use Policy for Computing and Information Technology  Resources" (http://rucs.rutgers.edu/acceptable-use.html), "Guidelines for Interpretation and Administration of the Acceptable Use Policy for Computing and Information Technology Resources" (http://rucs.rutgers.edu/acceptable-use-guide.html) and "Standards for University Operations Handbook" (http://www.rutgers.edu/oldqueens/standards.html)  Is there any additional articulation of the university policy with respect to e-mail privacy?

2. The "Acceptable Use of Network and Computing Resources" subsection of section IV of the. "Standards for University Operations Handbook" contains the following statement:  "The university also reserves the right to examine material stored on or transmitted through its facilities if there is reason to believe that the standards for acceptable and ethical use have been violated or for reasons of business necessity."  What is the meaning of "reasons of business necessity"?

3. What input did faculty have in the formulation of the policy on e-mail privacy? How has the university administration communicated this policy to the faculty?

4. What steps has the administration taken to guard against the possible chilling effect of its policy with respect to e-mail privacy on the free and open communication and inquiry that are essential to a university?

5. Are there procedures in place to regulate the examination of faculty e-mail?  For example, must faculty be notified after their e-mail has been read?  Is there an accountability mechanism with regard to examination of e-mail?

   The partial answers we received have done little to allay our concerns.  It appears that there have been (i) no elaboration of university policy on e-mail privacy beyond the statements in the three documents mentioned in question 1; (ii) no effort to communicate or explain the policy beyond putting links to the three cited documents on the RUCS website and distributing the "Standards for University Operations Handbook" to all Deans and Directors of academic units; (iii) no procedures in place with regard to the examination of e-mails; and (iv) no attempts to come to terms with the implications of the university policy on e-mail privacy for academic freedom and free inquiry.  Even more disturbing is our inability to obtain a clear delimitation of "reasons of business necessity".  The administration spokesmen mentioned three examples of "business necessity" for examining faculty e-mails; i.e., (i) to carry out necessary computer system maintenance; (ii) to seek needed information in the e-mails or other computer files of a faculty member who is ill or dies or leaves the university without leaving forwarding information; and (iii) to seek information with regard to an ongoing disciplinary investigation of a faculty member accused of wrongdoing. However, they would not agree that these were the only possible "reasons of business necessity".

  Although the above questions were all stated in terms of the privacy of faculty e-mails, the underlying concerns are also relevant to other members of the university community.  We believe, therefore, that the University Senate, as opposed to the AAUP or various Faculty Councils, is the appropriate body to pursue this matter.  My attempt at drafting a charge is given below.

DRAFT CHARGE ON E-MAIL PRIVACY:

Examine university policies and procedures with respect to the privacy of the e-mail communications and other computer files of members of the university community and make recommendations for change where appropriate.  In particular, address the following questions: What are the current university policy and practices with regard to e-mail privacy?  Are current policy and practices appropriate for a university community?  How was the current policy formulated and how has it been communicated and explained to members of the university community? Are there appropriate procedures in place to regulate the examination of e-mail and notify those whose e-mail has been examined?

Regards,
Martha
____________________________

Professor Martha A. Cotter
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology
Rutgers University
Phone: 732-445-2259
FAX: 732-445-5312
e-mail: cotter@rutchem.rutgers.edu
____________________________