<strike>A Welcome Concession? Or just movement our way?</strike> Or not.
By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
helping of crow seved below...
On the first two panels today, Vice Chairman Toner essentially proposed a new policy governing the question of "blogging at work" - or more specifically, a revision to the regulations governing the use of corporate facilities for political purposes. The proposed rule actually adds "computers, software and other Internet equipment and services" to this definition of "facilities." (currently the allowable use of these facilities is only isolated, occassional, and incidental)
Toner basically asked the reformers on the panels (Don Simon and Larry Noble) if they would be comfortable with a regulation that would allowed unlimited personal use of these facilities as long as 1) it was not directed by a corporation and 2) it didn't violate a corporation's policy on personal activity in the workplace.
Both Simon and Noble agreed that they would be comfortable with such a rule. In their written submission however, the reformers wrote,
" D. Use of corporate and union facilities. (11 C.F.R.5 114.9)
The NPRM proposes to amend 11 C.F.R. 114.9 to specify that "computers, software and other Internet equipment and services" constitute "facilities" for purposes of the existing rule that allows shareholders and employees of a corporation to make "occasional, isolated and incidental" use of corporate "facilities" in connection with a Federal election . 11 C.F.R. 114.9(a) (proposed). A comparable proposed rule applies to the provision relating to the use of labor union "facilities" by members and employees of a union . Id. at 114.9(b) (proposed) . We believe that this extension of the existing rules in each case is reasonable, and we support its adoption."
It's a welcome development that the reformers are expanding their willingness to allow for more personal freedom, as opposed to their written submission which makes no mention of any additional consideration.
Update [2005-6-28 18:48:52 by krempasky]: Ah, the perils of not being a lawyer. While the reform groups' comment doesn't mention this, I should add that the current regs accept some unspecified amount of use - as long as it doesn't affect an employee's normal workload. I took Toner's extra effort to express this accomodation (apparently to replace the "occasional, isolated and incidental" with one more accessible) as more substantively different from the not-as-apparent definition of the corporate facilities rule as a distinction. Toner's use of the word "unlimited" versus "occasional, isolated and incidental" walked me right into it.
My apologies for being slow on the uptake - but that's what I get for relying on two other election attorneys that brought this to my attention as notable without doing my due diligence.
« Financing the General Election — Comments (6) | The DUMBEST idea I've heard today — Comments (11) »
<strike>A Welcome Concession? Or just movement our way?</strike> Or not. 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It is an important question which you bring up: in what areas would news sites that allow public commentary on individual articles, or other forum-related activites, fall? Should a company's policies change such that an employee is not allowed to compose their own weblog using corporate facilities, would that also encompass the use of commentary discussion regarding political news articles? If such is the case, would a network administrator then be bound by corporate policy from barring access to those websites?
I fully well know how Corporate Managers think. I've done that.
If there is any possible way that it can come back on them, it'll be banned. Which means that I can kiss the internet goodbye at work.
And that'd purely make me mad. My job has unavoidable "waiting periods" that can last between fifteen minutes and eight hours, depending on what is being done to whatever machine I'm checking the dimensions off of.
And if I have to go back to reading books, I will. But this sort of thing is much more entertaining. And time goes faster when I'm having fun.
I'm mad enough at the .gov now.
I probably won't go buy a truckload of fertilizer over it, but one never knows. I'd love to spread a load of fresh hog house cleanings on McCain for even getting this started, but the EPA would really be down on me if I did.
Oh, well. I'll settle for doing my Gollum imitation on him. "McCain? We hates it, precious. We hates it forever!"
It is unfortunate when a company decides to prohibit all instances of an activity rather than reprimand those who do so inappropriately. However, having been in a position of management before, I realize that there are times where such actions are necessary due to an inability to efficiently and correctly address the issue at hand.
At the very least, the cost to have someone standing beside you, skimming each paragraph of your book for innappropriate passages, would be more than most corporations would entertain.
If the idiots can't leave it alone, it'll be a no-fly zone for those of us who post from work occasionally.
I'm having enough trouble now, because the filter claims that Redstate is blocked because it's a Pornography site.
Let them come up with something like that, and I'll be lucky to get into Fox News' commentary section from work.
And at that point, I may have to start organizing lynch mobs for my Congresscritters and Senators.
Curse you again, John McCain! Anyone who wants him for President is either brain dead or just not paying attention.