I think this seems complex because so many folks insist on making it that way for their own purposes.
John Fenton is an employee. He is part of an internal investigation by his employer into something that happened in the course of his work for them. If they've asked him to keep this confidential, I'm sure that this is optional on his part, but that the likely consequence of breaking that confidence would be an end to the employee relationship. I would expect any lawyer advising him would probably tell him to keep quiet until the investigation is resolved, and perhaps thereafter, depending on the outcome. I don't think there is anything Machiavellian or unexpected here (isn't spell-check marvelous!) How many people here--including Al Krigman--would expect an employer to publicly discuss an issue with an employee that might have serious consequences for both? Sure--the employee has been asked not to comment publicly. Sure, the consequences should he do so are likely to be the obvious. How is this different from any other employer any of us have worked for? I've only had three or so employers thus far, and each has been a non-profit. And I don't see anything unexpected here--all but one of my employers would probably have done the same--the exception being one outfit that operated as a collective where we would have sat in meetings as a whole for a month or so before convincing ourselves about what the right course of action might be---but we wouldn't have done it sitting out in the street in public. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wilma de Soto Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:03 PM To: Anthony West; UnivCity listserv Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check Importance: High I'll defer to Karen as to the law since the only law I know is the "Law of Gravity." However, I DO know that REALLY BIG MONEY can make their own laws (so to speak), and hire enough attorneys to enforce their vision. Therefore, if John Fenton was told not to speak about the circumstances under which he is no longer at the UCD, I would think that a "gag order" would be correct, whether or not a judge ordered it remains to be seen. Still, if John Fenton violated this agreement, I feel there would CERTAINLY be swift and sure consequences. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
