warehammom here is the story..


By Patrick Cassidy
pcassidy@capecodonline.com
August 02, 2009
BOURNE — Some of the e-mail images show naked women having sex with each other.

One video depicts a nude woman using a hula hoop.

Computer advisory
Disclaimer that now appears when computers are turned on at the Barnstable County Sheriff's Office:

The use of this computer is for the business use of the Barnstable County Sheriff's Office. Its use is subject to the policies and procedures of the Barnstable County Sheriff's Office. You may not share your login credentials to any software or equipment owned or operated by the Barnstable County Sheriff's Office with any other person. You will be subject to discipline for the misuse of this computer or any Sheriff's Office electronic communication device. The access or sharing of obscene or objectionable material is against Sheriff's Office policy and will subject the user to discipline. If you receive objectionable material you must immediately notify the sender to cease such activity and you must report such incidents to your supervisor. There is no expectation of privacy in your use of this computer including email and internet use or the documents that you create.
Other e-mails show close up photos of female genitalia and at least one image of a naked man.

A Cape Cod Times investigation has revealed that more than two dozen employees at the Barnstable County Sheriff's Office, including high ranking administrators, have used taxpayer funded e-mail accounts and computers to send and receive pornographic photographs and videos like these.

Until the Times investigated, the e-mails were circulating for some time, according to former and current sheriff employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.

In response to a public records request last month, Sheriff James Cummings gave the Times access to computer records that showed a pattern of abuse by some of his most well-paid employees.

A sampling of e-mails sent from outside accounts to the sheriff's office and between sheriff e-mail accounts included more than two dozen messages with video attachments and embedded photographs of nudity, pornography and other sexually suggestive material. The e-mails came from a half dozen accounts covering a handful of specific dates in September and November 2008 and late June through July 2009.

Dozens of other e-mails reviewed by the Times included potentially offensive jokes and videos.


"It has no place here"
The sheriff's policy and procedure manual strictly prohibits the use of e-mail to "send disruptive, offensive, disparaging or otherwise inappropriate messages." Another section of the manual prohibits access to Web sites that contain pornography or obscene materials.

Any employee who violates the e-mail policy "may be sanctioned up to and including termination," according to the manual.

The sheriff, special sheriff, superintendent and assistant deputy superintendents are responsible for implementing and monitoring the policy. While Cummings said he did not know about the inappropriate e-mails before the Times' inquiry, several assistant deputy superintendents are among those who both received and forwarded the material. A retired special sheriff forwarded some of the e-mails to sheriff's office accounts from his private e-mail account, according to sources.

"Regardless of whether they were bathing beauties or the other end of that spectrum, it has no place here," Cummings said during an interview at his office inside the Barnstable County Correctional Facility in Bourne.

Since the e-mails were discovered, Cummings has sent a message to all staff informing them that the violations of the e-mail policy must stop immediately.

"These e-mails once received at the (sheriff's office) become public record and are open to public access and review," Cummings wrote. "If you do not want to see an e-mail with your name attached to it on the front page of a newspaper you should take every precaution to (ensure) you do not receive such e-mails."

In addition, a disclaimer now appears whenever a computer at the jail is turned on warning the user against misuse of the Internet and e-mail system, Cummings said. He is considering placing letters of reprimand in the files of those staff members who forwarded the inappropriate e-mails but no disciplinary actions have been taken yet, he said.

Beyond the e-mails uncovered in the Times' limited records review, Cummings said he does not intend to conduct his own investigation. "I got a pretty good idea of what it is," Cummings said, adding he could probably go further back and find more inappropriate e-mails if he chose to.

The letters could cost the affected employees a one-time $1,000 bonus they would otherwise receive if they had an unblemished record for the year.

Cummings said he was disappointed because the employees involved are senior staff members who are supposed to make sure the e-mail policy is never violated.

There have never been complaints about similar misuse of e-mail, although there have been concerns raised about "off-color jokes" in the workplace, he said.

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has two complaints on file involving the Barnstable County Sheriff's Office, commission spokeswoman Barbara Green said. One of those complaints involved harassment based on race and color and was withdrawn because the case was settled, Green said.

The other complaint was from more than 10 years ago and there was no other information immediately available on the nature of that investigation, she said.


On the taxpayer's dime
The existence of pornography in the workplace can constitute one leg of a potential sexual harassment case, Green said.

The other legs include the involvement of a specific group of people who are protected under the law, such as women.

A key requirement in a sexual harassment case is whether the alleged conduct — e-mailing pornography in this case — is unwelcome to an employee and prompts a complaint, Green said.

Sexual harassment makes the workplace a "hostile environment," Green said, adding that it is also against the law.

"One of the issues in something like this is that pornography in the workplace can be sensational evidence in the event that a worker sues the employer for hostile work environment," said Benjamin Wright, a Texas attorney who writes a blog on e-mail law topics.

A government agency may be reluctant to go to trial facing the possibility that such evidence could end up in the media and instead be more willing to settle a case at a higher cost, Wright said.

"Even if they could actually win on the merits of the case, they're going to get killed in the press," he said.

The agency would have a difficult time defending itself when the public is saying: "'I'm paying taxes and look what they're doing with my taxes,'" Wright said.


"I'm embarrassed"
Former and current sheriff's office employees told the Times that the practice of passing pornography and other offensive material through sheriff's e-mail accounts has been common.

"There were different jokes, whether they be sexual or racial," said one employee who received but did not send some of the inappropriate e-mails. "We have a good number of women who work there, and I know some of them would find this offensive."

There are roughly 80 women among the 347 employees at the sheriff's office, according to a roster provided to the Times.

Employees are hesitant to say anything because they could be transferred, the employee said.

Among the employees who both sent and received offensive e-mails, the Times uncovered a small group of about a half-dozen men. These include Daniel Harrington, assistant deputy superintendent of support services; John Rogorzenski, assistant deputy superintendent of security; Rodney Lynch, captain; Peter Monteiro, lieutenant; Douglas Hook, lieutenant; Scott Hennessey, lieutenant; and David Grenier, sergeant.

The salaries for the group range from $56,000 to roughly $80,000 annually, not including benefits.

"I'm embarrassed," Lynch said when reached by telephone Wednesday.

He would only look at the e-mails while on breaks, Lynch said, adding that the group who typically exchanged the e-mails knew each other on a social basis outside of work.

"At no time is it something that affected what I do here," Lynch said. "I'd look, I'd laugh, I'd send it to a friend. It would take two seconds."

In addition, Lynch said he had access to his work e-mail account on a laptop and may have seen some of the e-mails at home.

Lynch said he would never have forwarded the e-mails to a female employee. "If anything I am a guy who is just unfortunately being a guy," he said. "I can tell you it's completely stopped."

Rogorzenski, who received three of the e-mails the Times documented and forwarded a fourth to a fellow administrator, said he and the others would take responsibility for any violations of the policy.

The actions the sheriff has already taken are appropriate, he said. "It's been brought to his attention," Rogorzenski said. "He's addressing it aggressively."

The e-mail exchanges should not reflect badly on the department as a whole, Rogorzenski said. "The people that are working here are very good people," he said. "They're dedicated people."

Monteiro said he was embarrassed for the sheriff and for himself.

Beyond the potential loss of his $1,000 bonus, Monteiro said he would likely have difficulty the next time he was up for a promotion.

Monteiro said he and the other employees involved had learned their lesson.

"Clearly I made a mistake," Monteiro said. "I have no one to blame but myself."

Harrington said he did not recall seeing any of the inappropriate e-mails found by the Times even though he forwarded at least two of them and received others.

"I get e-mail all night long," Harrington said, adding that if he gets it at home on his Blackberry, he often just deletes it once he realizes what it is. "My concentration is on the facilities and what needs to happen to make it operate," he said.



Administrators who received the e-mails reviewed by the Times, but apparently did not report that sheriff's e-mail accounts were being used to distribute offensive material, include Michael Regan, the superintendent of the jail who received e-mails on his personal account; Robert Dillon, the assistant deputy superintendent of civil process; and Kenneth Fraser, the director of community corrections.

Dillon declined to comment when reached by telephone. Regan did not return a telephone message left for him. Fraser is in the hospital, according to Cummings.

An additional two dozen lower ranking staff and correctional officers received some of the e-mails. Because it is unclear whether they requested or encouraged the activity, the Times has chosen not to publish their names