After serving as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, Leon Panetta taught a course at Santa Clara University, his alma mater, about the White House. In early 1999, I met with Panetta to get his advice on how to organize an executive level political operation since I was running a mayor’s office. He told me something I never quite fully understood then: he never used e-mail.
I asked him how that was possible considering the fast pace a White House or any major political organization has to move these days. His answer was really simple. Your e-mail is subject to subpoena.
I guess in a Clinton White House you worry about things like this. But since then, as scandals big and small have unraveled in politics and business, I can see the cautious wisdom of Panetta’s practice.
If you work in government, your e-mail is also subject to public disclosure through the freedom of information act. Of course, e-mail is easily forwarded to places you’d never expect it to go. So, through formal or informal channels, an embarrassing or too revealing e-mail can end up on the front page of the New York Times or the Mercury News.
Plus, we tend to be more casual, honest, and direct in our e-mails. This has helped many a journalist and attorney general (see Eliot Spitzer, (link)) piece together today’s scandals.
We may see another chapter of e-mail discovery unfold locally in the next few weeks. On October 25, the San Jose City Council, at Councilman Chuck Reed’s request, may decide to publicly release the e-mails related to the NorCal garbage contract.
It’s the smart thing to do since the investigator will have access to these e-mails anyway and we can count on any significant messages becoming public in his report.
We can probably count on something else. Expect the authors of these e-mails to regret that they never had a chance to sit in on Leon Panetta’s class.
The Council discussion will shed light on who should be our next Mayor. Although Reed is right on target on this one he has missed the mark on others. Cortese seems to be more consistent in attempting to raise the ethical standards of city government and he deserves extra points for raising serious questions about the conduct of the city manager. Chavez continues to play the role of the Gonzo lapdog. Will she do anything to make us believe she has ethical backbone and finally do something about this garbage scandal or will she keep waiting and waiting while others do what needs to be done??
If email is out, Mr. Panetta must have also taught students to avoid:
1) Writing Letters. Never know who has access to a copy machine.
2) Using Computers. Offsite backup tapes are hard to destroy when you get word federal agents are in the lobby with a subpoena.
3) Talking to Strangers. One might be wearing a wire.
4) Speaking on the Phone. FBI agents are known to use wiretaps.
It is really comforting to know Mr. Panetta is giving such advice to our future leaders.
Gee whiz Jude, I sure didn’t need Leon to tell me when not to employ e-mail to communicate certain things.
I always send a voicemail message (I realize these can also be saved but it takes regular work to keep them saved and most people don’t do that) when I’m communcating anything I’d rather not have preserved in writing.
Even letting the boss know you’re going to have to leave early one day isn’t something I’d put in an e-mail.
Just shows what an incredibly inept (and in the case of Gonzo, arrogant) bunch we have running The Capital of Silicon Valley.
That Panetta is certainly a savvy operator. The writers of The Sopranos should consider creating a character based on just such an advisor, you know, a crafty, weasel-like lawyer who loves the trappings of power and has no regard for the public interest. One whose sage advice could help Tony and his crew murder and thieve their way through another term in office, I mean, season on HBO.
There is always the option of not doing anything to start with that you have to cover up or be ashamed of later. Email would then work just fine.
No e-mail? Check.
But what about stuffing classified documents in your pants?
Did Panetta cover that topic?
Lemme guess, the response was, “If, and only if, you check your clothes thoroughly before taking them to the dry cleaners”.
If you want to know what’s coming, here’s an e-mail Joe Guerra wrote in Dec. 1998 that was reprinted in Metro. He was threatening acting City Manager Deb Figone—
“Two things I can assure you both,” Guerra promises. “First is I am Old World Italian. … and I don’t forget anything. Second, next year [emphasis added] there will be zero tolerance for staff in either the administration or the Agency who do not following [sic] council direction. To be honest, I am not angry about all this,” he concludes, “just keeping my list and checking it twice.”
The Guerra tirades are welll known on the inside. In fact, because of his abusiveness and vindictiveness, Gonzo was asked not to hire him by several Councilmembers. Gonzo, showing only the finest traits in character assessment hired him anyway. Says as much about Gonzo as it does about Guerra.
If any dept. head said half the things Guerra has said, they would be out the door but good ol’ Joe continues to be allowed to shoot off his mouth in the most unprofessional ways and Gonzo sits by and allows it to continue. Another managerial quality of our Mayor and the so-called manager who also sits idly by.
Jude:
You are actually better off getting the information pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250, et seq. FOIA is for federal records request.
Some random thoughts;
What if the emails lack the smoking gun everyone seems to be looking for? The Merc is pushing to have them made public. Could it be that Gonzales is setting up the newspaper, and Reed, to look silly? Just speculating, but stranger things have happened.
Panetta’s advice to Jude was not dishonest. Just practical.
Peter’s advice is the best of all. Now how to we apply it to government work?
Deb Figone could kick Joe Guerra’s ass. Gonzo’s too. That’s why she’s not San Jose’s City Manager. Otherwise, recent history would read a lot differently!
Jude: A good reminder for those of us at City Hall. Even the most benign stuff could be misconstrued. We get reminders from time to time (via email of course) about not using City email for personal use. And it’s also prudent to watch what one says because it is all public information and could be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. I wouldn’t consider avoiding the use of email for some things as being hiding anything; it’s just good sense. Plus, I think that society as a whole uses email too much anyway. Within my office I find myself emailing someone one cubicle away (about something business-related, of course) and then think to myself: “What the heck am I doing?” It’s gotten to the point where we are just plain lazy at times.
#3: With our phones being VOIP (not to mention, umm, crappy, but that’s off the subject) here I wouldn’t be surprised if all of our voicemail messages are also backed up.
An interesting comment from Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, – “your email is subject to subpoena” about how a successful career politicians thinks and his concern that his actions if reviewed could possibly be determined to be unethical, illegal, be used against him or bring out the fact that he told different people different answers to obtain their support and doesn’t want the truth coming out.
Career politicians are the problem NOT the solution to our ethical problems
He did not say – act in an ethnical manner and tell the truth but said – do not put anything in writing that can be used against you.
Shame on him and all other politicians who behave like him and put up with a political system that richly rewards dishonesty and unethical behavior
Remember Mark Twain’s ’s quote “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.” should be updated include – or be concerned about your email
His comment makes the point better than anything I have seen recently that our current political system of electing the same group of “no core value” career politicians who will say anything, authorize their political consultants or staffers to do what is necessary to include threaten others, are willing to sacrifice honest and ethics or stay silent while other politicians lie and violate ethics to be elected and stay in various local, state and federal offices is badly flawed.
Sounds like San Jose’s career politicians and our “silent majority” City Council that sits by doing nothing as evil triumphs are part of the ethics / honest problem since they are doing nothing to develop an ethics / honest reform solution.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (women) to do nothing” – Edmund Burke
Shame on you, history will remember your names as the Gonzales – Guerra “silent majority” City Council that sat by and did nothing, when it is obvious to everyone except our City Attorney who continues to make legalistic excuses that we have an ethically and honesty challenged city government.
It is past time to have our honest and ethical elected officials speak up and actually do something or you will be clearly recognized as part of our ethically and honesty challenged city government.
Those career politicians, political consultants and staffers who advocate and practice unethical, dishonest, and unacceptable behaviors are the problem, not the solution to having open, honest, ethical and fiscally responsible government.
The first rule I learned in politics was never put anything in writing that you would not be proud to see published in the San Jose Mercury News.
It is not just illegal memos that get people into trouble, it is the embarrassing stuff contained in perfectly legal memos.
As in the email trail left by the Cisco debacle, the potential for embarrassment it great—even if not illegal.
The self-rightious who write that “truth telling” will never get you in trouble, have never been in positions of power.
The electorate, media et al don’t want the truth, they want their truth. They want to believe the myths of their own creation.
Among the most honest politicians was Willie Brown, but because the truth was often contrary to public myth—many people thought him dishonest.
Anybody notice how he has never been indicted? It’s not as if they didn’t try to get something on him.
But his statements often left people with an impression that he was not completely ethical. Hence the reason not to put his thoughts in an email.
Rich Robinson says Willie Brown is honest.
Rich—did you also write the novel 1984???
Next you’ll tell us that Ron Gonzales is smart.
What is the truth?
State of being true, accurate, honest or sincere.
Something that is almost completely unheard of in politics and by those political consultants who argue that those who are in positions of power are excused from telling the truth since they are talking to the people, media et al who “don’t want the truth, they want their truth They want to believe the myths of their own creation.”
Rejecting absolute truth for a politically relative truth because the truth is contrary to the myths of the residents, electorate, or media or unpopular or misunderstood is dishonest behavior by most everyone standards and not the behavior of political leaders but career politicians and some of their ethically challenged political consultants.
Political leaders who use politically relative truth and justifying actions for the “greater or higher good” since the public, media et al do not understand the truth or want to except the truth leads politicians down the path to greater dishonesty and unethical behavior which while it may not all be illegal is generally unacceptable behavior in our representative democracy, just look at George Bush.
What is the embarrassing stuff contained in perfectly legal memos?
Let’s get beyond the philosophical discussion and talk about the dishonest and unethical behavior of the Gonzales-Guerra administration that you are attempting to defend.
Are you arguing that Ron was telling the relative truth when he asked for an increase in garbage fees without disclosing that the main reason for the garbage fee increase was the difference in pay rates between the 2 unions and that if he would have been honest it would no have been accepted even though it was the best deal for the residents?
Are you arguing that not disclosing the cost of city hall funitire and computer systems or or allowing Cisco to specify the phone / network standards was ok rather than present the fact that we need new furniture and systems and supporting a local company who is a world leader in networking is a good choice for San Jose
A political leader has a responsibility to both educate and persuade the people that a particular course of action is the best solution for everyone but lately we seem to be willing to settle for unethical and dishonest career politicians.
San Jose can do better that another career politician and we deserve honest ethical political leaders.
Fair questions indeed.
First, I do not believe nor have I put forth any argument that politicians are excused from telling the truth.
But telling the truth all the time is difficult, if not impossible, for all human beings. The truth is not always positive and positive information is not always the truth.
Accuracy is not truth. The Mercury News is almost always accurate, but that does not mean the information is true.
If a reporter writes, “SJ Bloggers believe Ron Gonzales to be guilty of some crime.” That may be accurate, but that does not make the statement true.
True is simply the word truth in another form. Honesty is a synonym. Sincerity is not truth. George Bush is a sincere liar.
Some lies can be moral. For instance, if a Nazi comes to your door asking for Ann Frank and you say you have never seen her, yet she is upstairs in your attic, that’s a moral lie.
If a President says we are attacking Calais at night and we attack Normandy at dawn—that is a good lie.
Most of the politicians I know are truthful, but no human being I ever met is truthful all the time. Simple “white” lies that spare a person’s feelings are still fabrications.
The verasity of a person must be measured by the totality of the human being. It is simply not enough to say—everyone should tell the truth all the time.
I do not believe truth to be relative, however, unlike some on this board. It either is or isn’t.
People sometime say things they think are true, that turn out to be wrong.
I admit to being guilty of this more than once in the past. New information allows me to change my position. When a politician does it we call him a flip-flopper or worse.
I am not defending Gonzales or Guerra, if they have a moral defense for their actions they are perfectly able to provide it without my help, analysis or speculation.
But I don’t think it is fair of any person to expect abosolute truth, when human beings are incapable of such behavior.
My point really was, from a political standpoint, silence is preferable to dishonesty.
A politician does have a duty to educate and persuade. But a higher duty is that of the electorate who has a obligation to be involved, understand, learn and exercise their franchise with the same moral authority they expect from their public servants.
From what I have observed in my 26+ years in politics is that the former are far more likely to fulfill their duty than the latter.
Last, if you want an ethical leader, become one.
Steve – nice one – what does Leon Panetta have to hide?
Rich – you have lost all credibility with your defense of Willie Brown… I guess it depends on what your definition of “is” is?
Leon never got through to Richard Costigan (Arnold’s legislative secretary). Maybe that is because they have different backgrounds. ; )
The last time I saw Richard in action he had two blackberrys and two cell phones on him – one set for policy and the other for fundraising.
Maybe keeping policy and fundraising seperate (is that what Leon was infering?) takes more technology – not less.
#2 Steve… Penetta’s advice about email, letters, computers, strangers, the phone, etc. does have merit if one wishes to succeed in public life.
However, in spite of all this, we still have a free press. No, not FNN, CNN, MSNBC, or PBS; Bob Woodward and those who choose to speak from the “inside”.
I find it odd that you pin much of this argument on Panetta, then the Clinton White House and even go as far as to tie it to the current San Jose City Hall. Not only is this a long stretch of a farfetched imagination, but it is also out of touch with the times.
Yes, some good common sense is always practicable in any communications medium. Any smart professional should be somewhat aware and discrete, even when there is a pressing need to “get business done.” As Peter Carter (#5) points out, maybe then we would not have to worry.
But, lets’ take this standard to the current White House administration, which fashioned the “Patriot Act.” To think that you want to go back and talk about the Clinton years? Can we step beyond the year 2000 please?
I think the Bush White House e-mail controversy of 2007 is not only more current, but also more significant. I know it’s been only within the last year, Jude, but do you recall the following legacy of events:
The unprecedented midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration’s Department of Justice.
The Plame affair (also known as the CIA leak scandal or the CIA leak case) of 2003.
Jack Abramoff Guam investigation from 2002.
You can find a brief education on these topics at wikipedia.org. See the topic: “Bush White House e-mail controversy.” Enough is said there.
Tonight, an Associated Press news story now reads:
“Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.”
See article titled “Former Aide Blames Bush for Leak Deceit”
By MATT APUZZO (20 November 2007)
Did Jude Barry die too?
Haven’t seen any posts by him in a coupla years…