By the time former Sumner County principal Jim Butler was arrested and convicted of harassing a teacher with whom he had had a previous affair, it had also come to light that he used a district-issued computer and email address to send dozens of intimate emails to her.  

While such emails are in direct violation of the district’s email and Internet use policy, by the time they were discovered, there were much larger problems at hand, according to district spokesperson Jeremy Johnson.

“At that point, we had a situation that was becoming a criminal harassment case against one of our employees,” said Johnson, who added that the violation of the email policy faded into the background by comparison.

Had Butler not been charged and convicted of harassment and the emails had come to light, Butler most likely would have faced disciplinary action for it said Johnson. The punishment for violating the district Internet policy can range from a discussion about Internet use to termination of employment.

“I know of one employee who was terminated for violating the Internet policy,” said Johnson.

The policy that applies to students in Sumner County applies to every employee of Sumner County School District.”

That policy prohibits social site use, pornography, harassing or threatening communication, and offensive communication.

The district accepts that there will be a measure of personal Internet-email use on school issued email addresses.  

“We know that people are going to check their email at work to check the weather, or find out if someone wants them to stop on the way,” said Johnson. “ It happens everywhere.”

For Johnson and the district it becomes an issue when the email/Internet system is used excessively for personal reasons, or the things being sent are inappropriate, however Johnson stresses the limitations of the district in monitoring email use as a real obstacle to enforcement.

“If we don’t know the emails exist, we can’t do anything about them,” he explained.

According to Johnson, the time and cost of monitoring every one of the approximate 4,000 email addresses provided to district employees would be next to impossible to do, but he hopes when someone becomes aware that the policy is being violated he or she will take action.

“They can talk to their supervisor or they can contact the Human Resource Department, and we will look into it,” said Johnson.

Social sites are already blocked throughout the district thereby restricting personal use, however, emails can be sent at will. It is a policy that the school board’s Technology Committee has been scrutinizing. A change in policy concerning Internet/email use has already passed first reading at the Board, however, a second reason has not been scheduled due to committee member desires to tweak it a bit so that it only addresses areas that are problematic.

“The main purpose of the new policy was to limit the amount of blast emails that go out that are unrelated to school business,” said committee chairman Danny Hale. “But we also want to be sure the policy won’t prohibit organizations from sending out blast emails that are related to school business.”

Hale also believes there should be a focus on communicating to the several thousand district employees that the emails sent through district provided addresses are not private.

“”I think it is the most important thing we can communicate to the district’s employees,” he said. “It is not a private transmission, that email can be viewed by the public, the press, anyone who asks to see it. It is public domain and as such is not a private message. Employees need to remember that. “

Hale believes there is a way to monitor employee emails through software, though he understands it would be a burdensome task for the district’s IT department to set up and implement.

He also doesn’t believe that the problems stemming from Butler’s harassment of another employee should be laid at the feet of the district’s email system.

“Email is a communication tool,” he said. “People were communicating with others long before emails were around. They just used different methods. What happened in Portland was more of an HR department issue than the way the communication was sent.”