Email legal question

[kayak99]

A local Pennsylvania politician is communicating with his fellow elected officials, and some municipal employees, via email. Some, but not all, of the "conversations" could be personnel and/or legal type issues but they are copied to all of the above, regardless of the intended recipient.

He has a standard disclaimer at the bottom of each mail saying:

"This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. "


Is this really a legally defensible position? If it is, what types of penalties can be imposed for dessemination, forwarding, etc.? Would that answer differ if one of the "intended recipients" deceminated, forwarded, etc.?

 

[racer72]

There may be no penalties unless there is a local law that concerns use of the emails. Some government entities have laws concerning the dissemination of official memos and documents, the emails may be included is such a law. Then there is the concern of a large attorney bill one would have defending themselves in court.

 

[kayak99]

That was my point. If no laws are broken, no defense bills.

There is no local law but I do not know if there is a state law covering email issues.

Is email actually private?

 

[kayak99]

What about elected officials discussing municipal matters using private equipment and private email addresses on private time?

Since this involves the entire legislative body it also raises the question of Sunshine Act rules.

 

[CdwJava]

What about elected officials discussing municipal matters using private equipment and private email addresses on private time?

Since this involves the entire legislative body it also raises the question of Sunshine Act rules.

It would depend on the relevent laws in your state. It is entirely possible for public employees to discuss policy issues on their own time without running afoul of sunshine laws.

As Curt wrote, anything passed between the public employees through a government server is likely public record. The private conversations could be anywhere in between depending on the laws in your state.

- Carl

 

[kayak99]

It would depend on the relevent laws in your state. It is entirely possible for public employees to discuss policy issues on their own time without running afoul of sunshine laws.

The private conversations could be anywhere in between depending on the laws in your state.

- Carl

Thanks, I'll have to see if I can narrow that down to Pennsylvania. I do know public officials (enough to form a quorum) cannot meet in private to discuss any public issue.

Also still wondering, under the same circumstances, if their emails are private or can be made public.

 

[CdwJava]

Thanks, I'll have to see if I can narrow that down to Pennsylvania. I do know public officials (enough to form a quorum) cannot meet in private to discuss any public issue.

Also still wondering, under the same circumstances, if their emails are private or can be made public.

The same is true in my state, and we probably have the most open sunshine laws in the nation. However, private e-mails over private computers on private time that do not otherwise violate the law are not generally subject to sunshine laws. Even government employees are free to discuss issues among themselves privately so long as it is not part of a "chain meeting" or some other activity designed to circumvent public meetings laws.

The way it often works out here is that if one can show that deliberation was made on a matter with information NOT presented in the public forum, a violation of the sunshine laws can be made. This is difficult to prove unless a council member cites information not presented in the open forum.

Anyway, if you are planning to take action against someone, it would be best to consult an attorney before you grab the wildcat by the tail.

- Carl

 

[kayak99]

"so long as it is not part of a "chain meeting" or some other activity designed to circumvent public meetings laws."

"information not presented in the open forum."

Actually that speaks to one of the issues. Two weeks ago a citizen complained about a member of our police force and our solicitor and their actions relating to an issue. It made front page news in our local paper. That issue is being discussed on and offline, but not in the public eye.

Opinions are being expressed, decisions are being made. An investigation was scheduled, then abruptly cancelled.

Should the content of the emails relating to this issue be shared with the public, there would be a lot of explaining to do by some elected officials.

There is, at least, the perception of a coverup.

 

[TomD1974]

Clarification?

I think you mentioned that this person just addresses the e-mails to a distribution list, and you receive the e-mail as part of that distribution, even though upon examination of the body of the e-mail, it was probably not intended for you, specifically.

If this is the case, the disclaimer that is included with the e-mail certainly does not preclude you from using that e-mail any way you wish. You are the recipient, and one could reasonably claim that the e-mail was "addressed" to you.

Of course that does not mean that if the sender was damaged by your resulting action, he couldn't at least bare some legal teeth. But people always have that option, even if there is zero merit.

Sounds like this bonehead needs a little lesson in basic technology.

 

[CdwJava]

These disclaimers are, essentially, worthless. Simply stating that something is confidential does not suddenly grant it special status under the law - particularly with government-related e-mails. I only wish more government employees would understand that.

- Carl

 

[kayak99]

I do thank you for your words of wisdom. These people, some elected, some appointed, have had free rein for a number of years. What they have gotten away with behind closed doors and with their political influence would amaze you.

Finally a small local David has taken on the larger municipal Goliath and I hope the stone he casts will bring some relief to this community.

If the emails are able to be released to the public, I think many who have kept their heads buried in the sand will finally wake up to the reality that exists.

Thanks agin!

 

[Mister Darcy]

Sounds like this bonehead needs a little lesson in basic technology.

Really? This seems to be the disclaimer that is appended to just about every e-mail transmitted over the internet.

 

[kayak99]

Really? This seems to be the disclaimer that is appended to just about every e-mail transmitted over the internet.

And your opinion as to the validity of the disclaimer is...?