As the meeting with Jay got going, it became apparent that he had been convinced that I had been “warned” to get express permission before “making” an audio or video recording of any Trimet employee.
I then endeavored to explain to him that “making” meant my physical presence at the workplace with my camera, on or off duty. He was under the impression that “making” means using any visual or auditory file where ever it may appear, including public domain material.
I then attempted to explain that there had never been any discussion around my use of public domain material until the letter from Robert Romo, where he made the statement “that is incorrect”.
The first letter had absolutely no reference to public domain material, but Jay seemed to think that “making” means posting anything, weather I personally made it or not.
“I am responsible for anything I post on my blog” is what I remember him saying. And if I post anything that uses pictures etc without permission then I am violation of HR202. (I continue to believe that this is absolutely not legally enforceable but that will require a court action)
I also tried to reference the HR investigation, which clearly delineated “scope” of policy with its ultimate ruling.
A-Not on Trimet equipment
B-Not on company time.
C-Not protected information.
D-I did not represent myself as speaking for Trimet.
Jay was not interested in any of that.
We wrestled back and forth about these issues. By the end of the meeting it did appear that he had opened up his mind to my point of view. He requested further information, which I have sent to him
.
So we will see, Jeff Ackerson seemed to think it went as well as could be expected, and he thinks Jay is a good judge of facts.
Hopefully he will be right.
No comments:
Post a Comment