Professor who leaked emails quits senate post

Professor who leaked emails quits senate post

A Springfield professor who shared emails from other faculty leaders with the University of Illinois president's chief of staff has resigned from the campus senate amid a vote of no confidence by her peers.

Tih-Fen Ting, professor in environmental studies on the Springfield campus, resigned as chairwoman of the University of Illinois at Springfield campus senate on Friday. She also resigned from the University Senates Conference, a cross-campus committee of faculty leaders.

The UIS campus senate has no confidence in her leadership and "condemns her unethical and unprofessional conduct both prior to and during the anonymous email investigation," the resolution stated. Ting's actions violated shared-governance principles and diminished the standing of the campus senate and the influence of the campus within the University Senates Conference, according to the resolution.

Earlier this month, an investigation revealed that Ting sent dozens of emails to Lisa Troyer, UI President Michael Hogan's former chief of staff. Those emails, from an anonymous gmail account, contained various communications and forwarded emails from members of the University Senates Conference. Troyer later resigned amid the investigation into anonymous emails sent from a Yahoo account from her computer to the senates conference.

"Given the circumstances, she has done the correct thing," said Don Chambers, chairman of the University Senates Conference and professor from the UI Chicago.

Allan Cook, a Springfield professor and chairman of the local American Association of University Professors, urged other faculty members to read the resolution and attend Friday's meeting.

"If there was a breach of ethics as the resolution implies, (her resignation) would have been the appropriate reaction," Cook said. "We think we have a pretty good little program here, and we want to keep it positive in the public's eye," he added.

It was Ting who tipped off Troyer on Dec. 12 that the two anonymous emails from the Yahoo account "aboutuiintegrity" may have been traced to Troyer's computer, investigators said.

In fact, starting in September, Ting had sent Troyer 36 emails about the internal senates conference debate on enrollment management and other issues, identifying herself only as "Supporter," the investigative report said. The emails were sent from "uiadvocate@gmail.com."

Among the documents she forwarded on Dec. 9 was a copy of the senates conference draft report on Hogan's enrollment management proposal.

The Dec. 12 anonymous emails from Troyer's computer to senates conference members said Hogan had likely received the senates conference draft report from an "outside source, so let us stop accusing one another."

Ting talked with Troyer three times the night of Dec. 12, first at 8:27 p.m., just one minute after Urbana Professor Roy Campbell emailed other conference members to show the anonymous emails appeared to have come from Troyer's computer, though he warned them not to jump to conclusions. Ting and Troyer spoke for 11 minutes, and at 8:43 p.m., Ting forwarded Campbell's email to Troyer. They talked again a minute later, for four minutes.

The Springfield senate's resolution contained excerpts from the investigative report and highlighted the finding that Ting initially denied sending the "uiadvocate" emails but later acknowledged it. Ting also told investigators she had difficulty believing that Troyer had any involvement with the anonymous emails sent to the conference from "aboutuiintegrity."

"I am delighted the University of Illinois Springfield senate has recognized the issues involved and taken appropriate steps," said Chambers, adding however that he was "concerned about a number of people who continue to support (Ting) and who will still be on senates conference," he said.

UIS Professor John Martin, vice chairman of that campus' senate and who also sits on the senates conference, said he regrets Ting's resignation. He declined to discuss Ting's actions outlined in the investigative report.

A replacement for Ting's spot on the senate or conference has not yet been determined. There are no provisions in the body's bylaws for removal or resignation of an officer, he said.

Emails Ting forwarded to Troyer show she had been involved in a bitter debate with Urbana faculty about the enrollment management report and other issues.

Ting and other Springfield representatives complained that their views were being subjugated by other voices from Urbana and Chicago in the drafting of the final report, and one Springfield professor, Carrie Switzer, resigned from a subcommittee putting it together.

Some communications Ting forwarded to Troyer were later quoted by Hogan in an email he sent Dec. 10 to UI Board of Trustees Chairman Chris Kennedy, updating him on the senates conference's discussions on enrollment management.

Hogan quoted an email from Urbana Professor Michael Biehl, member of the senates conference enrollment management committee and chairman of the Urbana enrollment management task force, explaining his desire to present a "joint, consensus view" to Hogan, rather than separate reports from the three campuses, to compel Hogan "to listen and collaborate. If he still chooses not to at that point, I don't think we can hold back any longer those that want to escalate this into a full confrontation with him."

Biehl said a lack of unity would allow Hogan to say that faculty are divided and move ahead with implementation.

"I don't think that is what we want, and in my opinion, will result in an operational and public relations disaster for all campus and this university," Biehl's email said.

Hogan warned Kennedy he had received anonymous information "that a confrontation may be being staged." He characterized the Urbana campus as "oppositional" and an "outlier" and said he expected to receive independent reports from each campus "in keeping with the statutes, which require that USC report differences when there is no consensus."

"The UIUC delegation is trying to pressure others to accept it as the official response with the aim of forcing a confrontation," Hogan wrote to Kennedy.

Kennedy later sent emails, based on a draft from Hogan, to the conference and three chancellors, urging them to accept the report.

Tensions among the campus senates also were reflected in a long email trail forwarded to Troyer by Ting from conference members discussing a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Martin, who had asked for the tape of an Oct. 18 meeting to be played for the full Springfield senate. Faculty from the other campuses wanted to know the purpose of the request and felt it represented a breakdown of communications and trust in the group.

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

Yatiri wrote on January 28, 2012 at 3:01 pm

Will the buck ever end up with Hogan?  Why is he blameless?

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 28, 2012 at 4:01 pm

"Ting told investigators" should be enough to bring in a state higher authority.  If Dr. Ting told investigators that had any authority the same thing; she could be facing perjury charges.  Who is ever going to believe anything that Dr. Hogan says in the future?  Both Ting, and Troyer will continue to draw high salaries with tenure.  Dr. Hogan will never rescind either of them of their tenure.  This scandal calls for a legal investigation of all three.  Dr. Hogan has three options: 1) Do nothing, and hope this goes away.  2) Rescind tenure, and void contracts for Ting, and Troyer.  3) Do the right thing by turning the matter over to a legal investigation.  It is becoming obvious that both Ting, and Troyer violated the state's Ethics Act as employees.  The best thing for the university, the state, the students, the faculty, and the taxpayers is for all three to leave with no monetary gain.

Alexander wrote on January 28, 2012 at 5:01 pm

Sid Saltfork -- Let me say immediately that Troyer and Ting's actions are despicable. Moreover, it seems clear that Hogan knew or should have known he was receiving information unethically. Personally, I'd like to see them all go.

That said, you've been going on and on over several comment sections of this site that "ethics rules don't apply to academics" or "academics don't adhere to ethics" or somesuch. First of all, just because these individuals were (in our estimation) unethical doesn't mean every academic is unethical. That logic is weak. By the same reasoning, every American should be considered criminal for the actions of a few for (pick your favorite crime or global action by your least favorite government official). Second, before you go on (and on) about consequences of the unethical behavior, do you actually know the precise rules and consequences of the state ethics laws? I don't, and I think it's actually a subtle thing (legally speaking). For example:

A. Do the actions of Troyer amount to a fireable offense? She may have violated appropriate use of email and internet resources. But then again, probably so does any state employee who uses email for personal use (like "who picks up the kids tonight?"). 

B. Same thing with Ting, Hogan.

C. Suppose you fire Ting and/or Troyer and/or Hogan. If you haven't fully established A and/or B, what are you going to do when UI get sued for unfair dismissal? What are the legal costs going to be like? 1 Million? 2 Million? Not to mention the potential payout.

 

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 28, 2012 at 6:01 pm

Read the state Ethics Act.  Personal e-mails like "who picks up the kids tonight" is an offense.  Sorry to tell you that many employees have been disciplined for that.  The actions of Ting, and Troyer are not comparable to your example.  Their actions including likely falsehoods to investigators are much, much more serious.  A state investigation with the knowledge of potential perjury charges for lying to investigators would determine the wrong doings.  There would be no "unfair dismissal" if they were found to have committed the actions.  They would be fired with possible perjury charges.  To have Dr. Hogan, the university president, deciding Ting, Troyer, and his own fate is totally irresponsible, and criminal.  It does seem clear that ethics do not apply to academics (Hogan, Ting, and Troyer) doesn't it?  Yes, not all academics are unethical; but it seems that three academics at the U of I are unethical.  The concept that they are protected by a contract, or the archaic term "tenure" is damming enough toward academia.  If you are an academic; why are you not protesting the lack of ethics, and seeking punishment for the wrongdoers?  Why the subtle defense of unethical academics?  The public would be less disapproving if the faculty, and student did more than write "resolutions".

Alexander wrote on January 28, 2012 at 7:01 pm

Obviously I'm not as versed in the state Ethics act as you, nor as capable of interpreting it. Can you actually cite chapter and verse re: how their wrongdoings must lead to termination? Note this is a precise legal question, not just answerable by a general "yeah they did stuff wrong and should fry" comment. I'd be happy as anyone if it's true. 

"If you are an academic; why are you not protesting the lack of ethics, and seeking punishment for the wrongdoers?"

I'm part of the 99%. I'm also part of the 99% that doesn't protest all kinds of things, like eating chocolate that results from child labor, or playing with computers made in sweat shop conditions, or gets off my butt to protest Wall Street excesses, or protest US involvement in things that might be unethical (I'll let the reader choose their own example). Unless you're able to tell me that you protest everything that is unethical that connects to you, I can't see how you're in the moral position to enforce that requirement on others.

Finally, why don't you, as a concerned and articulate citizen write to the appropriate boards to seek redress? 

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 28, 2012 at 9:01 pm

I assume based on your comments that you can access the State of Illinois website, and read the Ethics materials yourself without it being explained to you by a third party.  No, I do not protest everything just like you.  I am upset with this recent scandal in a long line of U of I scandals involving paying off wrongdoers.  At a time when services to the elderly, the disabled, and the poor are being cut; the defense of not dismissing the culprits based on a contract, or tenure is indefensible.  It makes the public wonder if the archaic notion of tenure is more important than doing the right thing.  If the Board of Trustees received mass e-mails, and letters with copies to the governor, and legislators; there might be interest in conducting a legal investigation involving possible disciplinary actions, or prosecution if perjury were committed.  I am protesting it in various ways; but your not.  I do believe that there is a "moral position" on this issue.  As it is now; nothing will be done by Dr. Hogan.  Dr. Ting, and Dr. Troyer will continue to draw their salaries, and keep their protective tenure.  That does not seem to bother you; but it bothers university state employees, other state employees, the elderly, and the disabled who see cuts in their salaries, and services while an elite group continues to draw high salaries when involved with wrong doing being protected by the archaic notion of tenure.  I am curious to see what Monday brings to the issue.  Hopefully, more people will see it for what it is rather than defend it.   

Alexander wrote on January 28, 2012 at 10:01 pm

Can I assume that since you repeatedly do not respond directly, to my request for a precise citation of where what they did qualifies under the law for termination, that you don't know of one? I didn't know of it either.

"As it is now; nothing will be done by Dr. Hogan.  Dr. Ting, and Dr. Troyer will continue to draw their salaries, and keep their protective tenure. That does not seem to bother you;..."

Sure it bothers me, that's why I began this exchange with a direct statement that I find their actions descipable. How much more direct do I need to be?

"...archaic notion of tenure..."

Ugh. The existence of tenure is mostly a distracting issue here. I return you to the issue of what the law provides, the issue that you largely want to ignore.

"Hopefully, more people will see it for what it is rather than defend it."

I propose that one needs to intimately understand the issues, both for and against before you make your arguments. Otherwise how do you expect to confront the simplest of defenses? Knowing something involves checking many points, not just the ones that support your belief.

asparagus wrote on January 28, 2012 at 9:01 pm

Just because Sid may or may not protest "everything that is wrong" in no way refutes that what which Sid is protesting is wrong or not.

Furthermore, you do not know that Sid has not written to the authorities that you proscribe.

Lastly, it is fairly obvious to all, but seemingly you, that the deeds committed in this scandal do in fact rise to the level of termination of employment.  If you had ever had to take the course in "university ethics" that is mandatorily given each year, you would know that the standards expected of all employees are clearly not being met by the 1% at the top (as represented), and that the promised punishment is clearly not being enforced.

In short, you sound like a mouthpiece for the privleged. 

Carry on!

Alexander wrote on January 28, 2012 at 10:01 pm

"Just because Sid may or may not protest "everything that is wrong" in no way refutes that what which Sid is protesting is wrong or not."

You're arguing a point I never made. "Sid" is lambasting academics for not doing more. On that point the question of whether one can expect "more" from a group X over issue Y is valid. I see no sense in which it is since obviously everyone else does the same.

"Furthermore, you do not know that Sid has not written to the authorities that you proscribe."

Fine, I never said he didn't. I just made the suggestion.

"Lastly, it is fairly obvious to all, but seemingly you, that the deeds committed in this scandal do in fact rise to the level of termination of employment.  If you had ever had to take the course in "university ethics" that is mandatorily given each year, you would know that the standards expected of all employees are clearly not being met by the 1% at the top (as represented), and that the promised punishment is clearly not being enforced."

I assume by "but seemingly you" you mean "but seemingly not you". You use the words
"fairly obvious" and "clearly". That makes me worried -- nothing precise as law is ever just "fairly obvious". Like Sid you provide absolutely no statutory backing for your claims. In fact, I look forward to being educated on this matter by you, Sid or anyone else.

Next time you take your "university ethics" course, which by the way, is not the same as a precise and complete analysis of ethics law, tell me where it indicates the specific punishment for Troyer, Ting, or Hogan's misdeeds? For all I (and I gather you) know, the punishment is a $50 fine.

 "In short, you sound like a mouthpiece for the privleged."

  Ah yes, because I want to have the situation understood better than shallow talking points, I'm a mouthpiece for the privileged. As you say "carry on" with weak arguments and derivative understanding of the legal underpinnings of your complaint. How far do you think that will take you in your supposed protest? 

asparagus wrote on January 28, 2012 at 10:01 pm

Hi,

To refute your weak logic, I begin with this:

>"You're arguing a point I never made. "Sid" is lambasting academics for not doing more. On that >point the question of whether one can expect "more" from a group X over issue Y is valid. I see no >sense in which it is since obviously everyone else does the same.

I submit that this statement makes no sense at all.  Thus, it may be ignored. Try again.

To your statement: "Fine, I never said he didn't. I just made the suggestion." I see no difference.  Once again, you lose! Sorry, try again.

>I assume by "but seemingly you" you mean "but seemingly not you". You use the words
>"fairly obvious" and "clearly". That makes me worried -- nothing precise as law is ever just "fairly >obvious". Like Sid you provide absolutely no statutory backing for your claims. In fact, I look >forward to being educated on this matter by you, Sid or anyone else.

Your education is obviously evident in you correction of my loss of "not".  Yet your judgement and motive is lacking in your adhoc and emotional response. I submit that the offenses committed by mutltiple parties in this case are far in excess of the level of their received punshments that would be understood to be expected by similar offenses committed by the "99%".  This is my understanding from having taken the past yearly "ethics training" personally.  Do you have such experience?

>Ah yes, because I want to have the situation understood better than shallow talking points, I'm a >mouthpiece for the privileged. As you say "carry on" with weak arguments and derivative >understanding of the legal underpinnings of your complaint. How far do you think that will take >you in your supposed protest?

The only thing shallow in this discussion is your understanding of the facts and your grip on the underlying ethical inequality inherent in the events of this debacle.

 

 

 

 

Alexander wrote on January 28, 2012 at 11:01 pm

"I submit that this statement makes no sense at all."

Sid is complaining that a group X does not do more about Y. I said that he is in no moral position to make this complaint, since he himself is probably in some other group X' that does not do more about some other issue Y'. You want to say that this is not relevant to whether Y is wrong. I never said Y wasn't wrong. Is that clearer?

"To your statement: "Fine, I never said he didn't. I just made the suggestion." I see no difference.  Once again, you lose! Sorry, try again."

I do. 

"Yet your judgement and motive is lacking in the ad hoc and emotional response."

There is nothing ad hoc nor emotional about my response at all. I'm sticking to the logic. Do you even understand your own sentence? For example, what does "...and motive is lacking" mean?

"I advance that the offenses committed by mutltiple parties in this case are far in excess of their received punshments that would be understood to be expected by similar offenses committed by the "99%"."

What you advance based on no citations is irrelevant. I for one wish Troyer, Ting and Hogan go out for this (as I've said earlier). But what I want isn't always what is legally available. Again you provide nothing but derivative understanding of the law. "I advance", "clearly", "obviously" mean nothing if you want to propose legal action.

"This is my understanding from having taken this yearly "ethics training" personally.  Do you have such experience?"

You clearly know near nothing about the precise version of the ethics law from this training. Otherwise you would be able to explain to me exactly what was violated and the exact legal ramifications. All you know from ethics training is whether to take $75 or less from a vendor in gifts, don't pretend to assert vast knowledge from that pathetic 30 minute web exercise.

"The only thing shallow in this discussion is your understanding of the facts and your grip on the underlying ethical inequlaity inherent in the events of this debacle."

Yawn.

asparagus wrote on January 29, 2012 at 1:01 pm

I do not need to be a lawyer or quote regulations to know that I have been promised certain types of punishments for certain types of misconduct based on several years of mandatory ethics training at UIUC.

It is my opinion that the ethics standard is not being applied fairly to these officials.  That's my opinion.  Feel free to disagree.  But don't try to tell me that I'm not qualified to have one just because I didn't jump through your contrived hoops.

Thanks.

Alexander wrote on January 29, 2012 at 3:01 pm

You are qualified to have any opinion you wish -- and it happens to be an opinion I share (that the trio should be punished). However, the problem comes when one applies opinion to try to draw conclusions about a legal process, which is now governed by specific laws. Once again, I ask you to ask yourself: -- you again vaguely bring up "certain types of punishments" for "certain types of misconduct", can you make that precise for yourself? I can't.

Have a nice weekend and best wishes; it's been a pleasure :)

asparagus wrote on January 29, 2012 at 7:01 pm

I don't need to provide legal specifics to point out that the standards and punishments applied to the "99%" for offenses like these are far more severe and definite.  And, I can make that claim based on my experience and observations.

I never drew any conclusions about a legal process.  I have pointed out an injustice that should be remedied, and I have lamented over a seemingly pervasive corruption that continues to fester at the highest levels of power in this state!

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 29, 2012 at 9:01 am

@asparagus;  He is only playing games; and not dealing with the issue.  We are both wasting our time debating him. One must expect reactionary statements by the status qou on campus when one speaks against the academic system.  We both feel the outrage that many more are feeling also.  Let it go with him.  The story is spreading slowly.  Time will tell whether anything is done about the matter, or not.  Sadly, we both know how this has damaged the already tarnished image of the university, and the state. 

Mike wrote on January 29, 2012 at 12:01 pm

Sid's probably going to wet himself when he finds me agreeing with him for a second time...

That said, I didn't read that he was going on and on about academics and tenure and everything else. To be frank, I read his comment without even reading who wrote it and agreed with just about everything he said.

To sit here and argue the finer points of what's in the ethics act or ethics test or any of that sillyness is a useless task.

Troyer should lose her job. Period. The Ting person? Probably. I don't know much about it. Hogan? My opinion is yes, but I think we need more data. 

Is Sid allowed his opinion on this matter? Sure! Tenure protects these people, and perhaps the whole idea of tenure is outdated and needs to be reworked (just as I might argue that civil servants get hired into these Union jobs at the University where they can do whatever they want and never get fired). There was a good reason for Unions 100 years ago. There was probably a good reason for tenure 100 years ago (at the college and/or grade/high school levels). 

Perhaps both systems need to be reworked. But that's another argument, I guess.

But I don't think Sid needs to be vilified right now because he's outraged that all three of these higher-up academics are going to be protected in this whole thing. Personally I think the University and Board of Trustees are afraid to have any more "scandals" and is brushing any new ones under the rug. And it seems to me that all that will do is perpetuate more and more scandals. 

It truly is ridiculous. Opine on, Sid. :)

Alexander wrote on January 29, 2012 at 3:01 pm

Dear Mike --

"That said, I didn't read that he was going on and on about academics and tenure and everything else."

In this _one_ thread. See his comments in related topics recently. However, this is a minor point, and I'd prefer to move on.

"To sit here and argue the finer points of what's in the ethics act or ethics test or any of that sillyness is a useless task."

I vehemently disagree. It's the most crucial point. Everyone agrees that THT (=Troyer-Hogan-Ting) are part of something very slimy. So there's no debate, and nothing new learned by more uninformed people discussing the obvious. (Yes, there is venting value, but that's different than learning anything.) 

A main complaint so far has been that U of I has been too soft. This has been a source of anger. The prevailing point of view is "cover up", "conspiracy of silence", "hush money" blah blah  blah. Maybe this is true, but also maybe not. For example, it might be much more difficult legally to handle the situation than we may think. No one: not Sid, not asparagus et al have been able to provide a single citation from the ethics act explaining what they violated or what the penalties are. All they can provide is vague statements, learned from derivative sources, or their own imagination.

Summarizing, any statement of the form "THT suck" is true as far as I'm concerned. However, any statement like "THT should be terminated" or "U of I is doing wrong by not terminating THT" is the truly subtle and key issue. There are true penalties for action based on vague analysis: lawsuits that could cost even more money. Thus time to gather the facts and analysis is needed. If you want to vent, then vent -- but don't mistake venting for reasoned legal analysis.

 

pattsi wrote on January 28, 2012 at 7:01 pm

Here is a glimace of comments being posted on the Chronicle of Higher Education online version and related to articles in the Chronicle about the happenings at UI. Some articles can only be accessed by subscribers. The two below are open for the general public to read.

http://chronicle.com/article/Former-Chief-of-Staff-at-U-of/130363/

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/u-of-illinois-chief-of-staff-resigns-o...

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 28, 2012 at 9:01 pm

Thank you pattsi.  The news is slowly spreading.  Other publications are starting to carry it also.  The comments to the Chronicle's articles were interesting.

pattsi wrote on January 29, 2012 at 4:01 pm

This web site might yield helpful information for this thread. You will find information about ethics, OMA, and FOIA, though this is not part of the thread. Looking at the OMA might be useful.

http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/foia_educationalmaterials.aspx

Alexander wrote on January 30, 2012 at 6:01 am

@asparagus

What you've said about the 99% _is_ a legal conclusion. Let's talk about Troyer, who we have the most about right now:

1. First no one in the 99% would have even been in the position to do what Troyer did, so I'm not even sure what 99% situation we're comparing to.

2. Let me _assume_(!) she gets a salary more in line with her colleagues in psychology. Oh, let's say it's on the higher side $150K (I know, the highest I think is 197K, but that might be an adminstrator, I'm too lazy to check right now.) So that's a 50K or 25% pay cut. 

If a 99%er (say a dept. secretary) anonymously emails a department committee something similar (e.g., "let's not pretend we have consensus about where to hold the Christmas party.") you say that for _sure_ she would get worse than being moved to a different job with a pay cut?

I can only say _maybe_. Even in this situation, I don't know what precise rule she violated, and the sanction. Most of what I said about Troyer applies here: you need to be very careful in terminating the secretary or you face unfair dismissal -- remember, since she's a 99%er, it's unlikely UI will call in a forensic team to produce a long report at big expense. So you'd have less to go on to terminate her.

The 99%er has a union: you can't just fire someone because you think they're unethical; it has to be specifically illegal and the dismissal in line with other situations. Otherwise (I repeat) you open yourself to a lawsuit. 

What is true is that a 99% might not know their legal rights. With Troyer, one can assume that she's sophisticated enough to retain a lawyer need be -- and the ratio of cost/benefit is higher than most to do so -- also the risk/reward in firing her is also higher for the U of I. 

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 30, 2012 at 10:01 am

Does the employer (State of Illinois) work rules have one chapter for the 99%; and another for the 1%?  So far; your comments seem to imply that a costly lawsuit is the primary reason for not continuing any action toward Dr. Troyer, and perhaps Dr. Ting, and later Dr. Hogan.  Why not have an outside authority with legal status conduct an investigation with the power to pursue perjury charges if falsehoods are made during the investigation?  Anything less smacks of a "cover up". 

Alexander wrote on January 31, 2012 at 6:01 am

You use "_any_ action" (emphasis added) -- I don't. Yes, pursue action, but do it carefully and legally. You also ask about an "outside authority" investigate. _If_ you can do that then go ahead; obviously it would be great. Frankly, I don't know how that works exactly. Remember, the individuals involved have a right not to speak to the investigators if they are a police authority.

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 31, 2012 at 1:01 pm

@Alexander;  Are you Dr. Troyer?  Sure sounds like you might be her, or Dr. Ting, or Dr. Hogan.....

Alexander wrote on January 31, 2012 at 7:01 pm

@Sid -- Yeah, you got me, I am. Good for you.

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 31, 2012 at 9:01 pm

@Alexander;  I know better than that; but thanks for playing.  We might disagree; but you have a good sense of humor.  Have a good evening.  

Sid Saltfork wrote on January 30, 2012 at 9:01 am

@Mike;  You made me spill my coffee this morning......  I believe that people who oppose each other on some issues can agree on others.  I appreciate your stand.  Now, I have to change my shirt; and get another cup of coffee.