Tampa Is…?

Employees use the Internet at work for personal business? Imagine that! How unconscionable. But seriously, if it weren’t for work hours, when would you find time to read the rambling nonsense here at Sticks of Fire?

The Tribune reports that the County is investigating the computer surfing habits of a supervisor within Hillsborough Court Clerk’s Traffic Division. Christalle Franklin, already under investigation for an “obscene e-mail about an employee,” has already resigned but this article paints this as a case of “theft”.

“That’s just plain stealing,” former Stetson Law School dean Bruce Jacob said. He compared it to welfare fraud.

Fraud? What’s with the hyperbole? Last month in New York, Judge John Spooner ruled:

“…the Internet has become the modern equivalent of a telephone or a daily newspaper, providing a combination of communication and information that most employees use as frequently in their personal lives as for their work.”

In other words, if you let employees read the paper, make personal calls, or conduct other personal business, then you cannot single out Internet use.

To be sure, there are practical reasons that you don’t want employees surfing the web for “hundreds of hours,” but violating department policy and stealing are two very different topics.

Why does an activity that is fairly widespread in the private sector become verboten when you are a public employee? County Clerk Pat Frank seems to agree, saying there is a widely unenforced county policy against personal web surfing on county time. I assume there are policies against personal calls and pee breaks outside your allotted break period that aren’t enforced either.

I am not sure why I should care about this minor infraction of county policy, but the Tribune reporter (and ex-cop) Lenny Savino ties it to the ongoing problems in this department with the mention of Franklin’s coworker Veda Virgil and the state investigation into her actions. The article in no way indicates Franklin was involved with Virgil, other than to mention that they both had received positive employee evaluations. It also reveals that both have criminal records and that Franklin, a supervisor of twenty clerks, was only making $15 an hour.

My issue with the article stems from its unfocused nature. Nobody (including the courts, I suppose) cares about this woman’s travel plans or little league schedule. I am more concerned at the low pay and quality of the people working for our court system (including supervisors giving “outstanding” evaluations). I’m sure that is the message Savino and the Tribune are trying to convey.