Generation Gap for Appropriate behavior [Archive]

Cavatica

24th January 2008, 01:36 PM

Okay-- first of all, it wasn't the school principal. It was the Fairfax County public school system chief operating officer. Crucial distinction there.

It's my understanding that the student's initial call was very polite, but without having heard it, I'd be willing to assume it's not as courteous as the student's making it out to be.

Either way, if the guy didn't want to be called at home, he should have had his home number removed from the phone book. I'd go so far as to say that school administrators are public figures the same way local politicians are -- since taxpayers pay their salaries -- and if they're going to be stupid enough to make their numbers private, then people have a right to assume those numbers are legitimate means of contact.

Even if the kid was out of line in calling Mr. Tistadt (God, what a horrible name), Candy Tistadt (man, that's even WORSE) was hugely out of line in her response. I mean, like, Crazy Bitch Syndrome out of line. She's obviously got some bottled-up anger about her husband's schedule, but she needs to rein that shit in. Whether she likes it or not, everything she says reflects upon her husband's capacity as a school official, and she's doing him a serious disservice by using phrases like "snotty-nosed little brats." I mean, have you guys actually listened to the call? Bitch has some issues, for serious.

And as for that being spread around the Internet, I'm all for everyone knowing about her Crazy. And I'd be willing to lay money down that there's nothing illegal about it, either.

Bobbsy

24th January 2008, 02:06 PM

And as for that being spread around the Internet, I'm all for everyone knowing about her Crazy. And I'd be willing to lay money down that there's nothing illegal about it, either.

I won't take that bet because rules regarding the Internet, privacy and copyright are still unclear which is why I used the word "possibly". What I can say is that in broadcasting it would be illegal to use a recording without prior consent unless there was a "public interest" defence which clearly doesn't exist here. It is still being determined in the courts whether publishing on the Internet constitutes "broadcasting".

In any case, I think Faren is right about a generation gap here. Whatever the boy's claims about being "polite", the mere act of phoning to complain that he didn't get a day off school was inappropriate and an unwarranted imposition.

I respect any public official for allowing his or her number to be in the phone book and, had the call been about a matter of an substance, I daresay there would have been no problem. However, I don't consider a minor calling to whine about having to attend school in all of 3 inches of snow to be a matter of substance.

As I said in my original post, I consider the wife's response to be equally inappropriate and probably an embarrassment to her husband. However, this is a case of (to mangle a cliche) 3 wrongs don't make a right. The boy was wrong to make the initial phone call and was even more wrong to publish a recording of a third party on the net.

Bobbsy

Edited to ask how you ask how you actually heard the phone conversation (which I would like to have)? When I click on the YouTube link I receive a page telling me the material has been taken down by Youtube.

Cavatica

24th January 2008, 02:13 PM

I respect any public official for allowing his or her number to be in the phone book and, had the call been about a matter of an substance, I daresay there would have been no problem. However, I don't consider a minor calling to whine about having to attend school in all of 3 inches of snow to be a matter of substance.
Thing is, you're talking about Northern Virginia (I went to the same school system as this kid), where snow happens, but not that much snow happens. Even an inch or two of snow is usually enough to close schools or, at the very least, delay their opening by a few hours. Between four and six inches can be enough to keep schools closed for as much as two days, if the snow hangs around for a while. I'll grant he was just whining about not wanting to go to class, but given the normal FCPS response to inclement weather, it's a perfectly legitimate question for the kid to ask.

As I said in my original post, I consider the wife's response to be equally inappropriate and probably an embarrassment to her husband. However, this is a case of (to mangle a cliche) 3 wrongs don't make a right. The boy was wrong to make the initial phone call and was even more wrong to publish a recording of a third party on the net.And I disagree. This is 2008. Anything you say can and will be used against you on the Internet if photographic, video, or audio evidence exists. Don't be stupid enough to leave a trail of bread crumbs leading directly to your Crazy. Mrs. Tizdick, or whatever, learned that lesson the hard way. What did she THINK was going to happen? At the very least, he was going to tell everyone he knew.

Cherlyn

24th January 2008, 02:19 PM

Bad judgment compounded by more bad judgment . . .

Kater

24th January 2008, 02:46 PM

Bad judgment compounded by more bad judgment . . .

I agree wholehartedly.

Gryphon

24th January 2008, 02:51 PM

Actually, laws state that if a telephone call is being recorded, both parties must know that it is, and consent to it. Since she left a message, one would have to assume that she knew she was being recorded....... insert big DUH!! there. I'd agree that both if they didn't want to be bothered, their number should be unlisted, as well as the student was probably whining about having to go to school in the snow. Here, we insert the appropriate "back in my day we blah, blah, blah" story about how terrible it was and we still walked to school, and how kids today have it so easy, ad nauseum.

But in the here and now, my wife drives almost 50 miles one way over 2- and 4-lane hiways to teach school. Monday night there was an ice storm........ sorry, more like a slow drizzle at 15 degree F. temperatures. It coated everything in a nice, slick layer of ice. Cars and trucks everywhere they didn't belong; ditches, medians, right side up, upside down, and semis laying on their sides. My wife's school didn't close. It's in a small town where most students are bussed in from outside the city limits, and right on I-44, about 1/2 mile from the exit, was a semi on its side. I personally saw it there over a 3 hour span, and the second time I saw it, it was no further along getting upright than the first. I was transporeting an inmate to St. Louis for release, because the bus I was supposed to put him on was still in Springfield waiting to leave, at the time it was supposed to be in Rolla, 100 miles up I-44. The schools that DID close did so after teachers and students would have already been trying to get there, which is gross negligence as far as I'm concerned. Her school even had classes on Monday, which was a holiday for almost every school in the rest of the country. Why? Because they had dismissed classes for snow 1 stinkin' day already this year.

I'm through with that rant now. What the student did was rude. A complaint about the way the chief operating officer was doing his job should have been directed to his work phone, not his home phone, published number or not. Maybe he's new to the job and the phone book came out before he got the job, so he couldn't get an unlisted number. But whatever the reason, his wife's response was not in line with what should be expected of the spouse of a public employee. Like said above, two wrongs don't make a right. (But 3 rights do make a left.)

SpaceCowboy

24th January 2008, 03:04 PM

I disagree with what both of them did. The kid was rude for calling the HOME phone of the official. In my opinion he should have called their work phone. The wife should have let her husband handle it not gotten involved herself. In addition the kid was doubly rude for posting what the wife, wrong in her behavior or not, meant to be a PRIVATE conversation. I don't care if it is easy enough to do so or not, a PRIVATE conversation about a PRIVATE matter should not have been posted on the internet.

Personally I think the kid sounds like a real winner, and will become a statistic. I.E. a dropout since it sounds like he doesn't care about getting an education.

Cherlyn

24th January 2008, 06:47 PM

Gryphon, I perked my ears up when you wrote I-44 . . .since it cuts right through Tulsa . . . one of these days Hubby, the BIL, Boo, and I will come through headed to Indiana - hubby was born in Lake Station . . . just spitting distance to Lake Michigan and Chicago . . .
We've had the same dunderheaded tactics here - they knew (in 2006) it was going to be a significant amount of snow and it was headed right for Tulsa. Classes weren't canceled but most schools in the region ended up sending students home at noon . . .
During the ice storm - kids were out for a whole week due to power outages and food replacement.

Calla

24th January 2008, 07:11 PM

I agree that calling a school district employee at home is strange, but I don't consider that rude. As long as the call itself wasn't rude.

About the rest...if you leave a nasty message on someone's cell phone, you should expect it to be posted.

Brenda

24th January 2008, 07:25 PM

Snow days are for when teachers and students can't get safely to school, not just a free day off. The fact that they were there in school shows that the CEO of the school district made the right choice.No, the fact that they were there in school shows that the CEO decided not to call a snow day. It doesn't say anything about whether that was the right choice. You can still get to school, even if it is not very safe to do so.

Gryphon

24th January 2008, 08:10 PM

No, the fact that they were there in school shows that the CEO decided not to call a snow day. It doesn't say anything about whether that was the right choice. You can still get to school, even if it is not very safe to do so.My point exactly about Monday morning here in the Ozarks.

Madrigal

24th January 2008, 09:01 PM

I think it's an example of stupidity and rudeness all around, really.

That being said, Fairfax County schools used to choose their snow days without much attention to how the outer edges of the county--which may not have been salted/plowed--were doing. It annoyed me as a student because I'd have to walk quite awhile to meet the bus, which couldn't safely get up certain slick hills. At a certain point, my parents would just let me stay home, and then I'd have to make up the work.

It's been developed quite a lot since then, but I'd be willing to bet that that officials are paying as little attention to road conditions anywhere outside of their own neighborhoods.

sglandon

24th January 2008, 09:27 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that every word the wife said was completely true, even if it was not her place to say them?

I can not believe the rudeness - it seems to me that someone did not manage to teach that child any kind of manners. You just don't do that. There are a half-dozen more appropriate ways to let the superintendent know you had issues with going to school on a day you considered the weather to be unsafe.

But he's a speshul snowflake, and must let his oh-so-important opinion be known as soon as it enters his little head? Sheesh! :shake:

Calla

24th January 2008, 09:48 PM

I have a question...why do so many think it is rude to call a Public Official at a listed phone number?

A public official is not like someone working in the private sector, although many people who work in the private sector gets calls at home that are business calls. I get them. If the school official didn't want to receive them, they could have unlisted their number, they chose not to.

Is it that a teenager made the call? Would you feel the same if an adult made the call? Or do you feel as the Fairfax County schools spokesman feels..."Any call to a public servant's house is harassment".

Our public servants should be reachable. We should be able to call them, or email them, or fax them. As long as we are civil and the call is in reguards to business, I won't call that harassment.

*edited to add
The student did try to reach the official at his office first, when that didn't work it seems he left a message at the home with his name and phone number. That doesn't sound harassing to me. Nor does it sound like a snot-nosed brat.

sglandon

24th January 2008, 10:23 PM

Samarra

24th January 2008, 10:25 PM

Actually, laws state that if a telephone call is being recorded, both parties must know that it is, and consent to it.
That varies from state to state (that comes up so much on People's Court). But, like you said, leaving a message on an answering machine is obviously a permission.

No, the fact that they were there in school shows that the CEO decided not to call a snow day. It doesn't say anything about whether that was the right choice. You can still get to school, even if it is not very safe to do so.

It was the COO, not the CEO.

I have a question...why do so many think it is rude to call a Public Official at a listed phone number?

That's my question.

I certainly wouldn't publish my phone number in the phone book unless I wanted people to be able to reach me.
He has the right to call and ask whatever he wants. She doesn't have the right to call anyone names. If she even chose to call back (bad decision number one) she shouldn't lose control of herself.

"This has been horrible for her"? Cry me a river.

Just a note: In Northern Virginia (which has a huge school district: 165,000 children, of which 110,000 ride one of 1,675 buses to school),some children walk to school. (Don't give me some speech about how you walked uphill both ways in ten feet of snow, barefoot, back when you went to your one-room schoolhouse in 1952.) People who aren't used to driving in snow conditions don't just stay at home-- they give it a go. It snowed here in my little corner of Virginia for the first time last week, and there were 49 (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/147524) accidents in an 8 hour timespan in my county, which has a population smaller than the number of children who don't ride the bus to school in Fairfax. Is it worth the risk?

Samarra

24th January 2008, 10:27 PM

You do not call anyone at home unless it is something important. His question was irrelevant. If he must have this question answered, he could email, send a letter or leave a message at his office.

You do not call people at home for this kind of thing.
Where's that disclaimer? My phone book is missing it.

Faren

24th January 2008, 10:36 PM

Where's that disclaimer? My phone book is missing it.

See, this is why I call it a generation gap thing. I would not consider calling someone on their home phone, during business hours, unless it was a dire emergency. I would think of it as an imposition.

I think the notion of privacy has been lost with the advent of cellphones, youtube, facebook/my space, etc... There don't seem to be any boundaries anymore. :shrug:

Cavatica

24th January 2008, 10:44 PM

See, this is why I call it a generation gap thing. I would not consider calling someone on their home phone, during business hours, unless it was a dire emergency. I would think of it as an imposition.

I think the notion of privacy has been lost with the advent of cellphones, youtube, facebook/my space, etc... There don't seem to be any boundaries anymore.
I'd be apprehensive about it, in which case I'd try to be as polite as possible to whomever it was I was attempting to reach -- but if they've got their phone number listed, they're fair game. There's nothing rude about it unless you're being, uh, rude.

If you don't want to answer your phone during the day, get caller ID or -- here's a crazy idea -- simply don't pick it up. There's nothing inconveniencing about the sound of a ringing telephone. You have as much chance of interrupting the important activity of someone you KNOW than someone you don't, so unless someone's calling to ask you if you're satisfied with your current long-distance provider or whether you've got any Grey Poupon, I don't see what people have their hackles up about.

Y'all are saying you'd be mad if the kid called you... just... because, you, um, want to be mad, or something? Like, you'd be just as pissed if the kid called you in the middle of watching a T.V. show you didn't really care about as if he'd called you in the middle of super-hot sex?

I mean, THAT, to me, seems pretty goddamn rude.

If it were me, I'd just express surprise that a student wasn't too stupid to actually USE a phone book, and then I'd explain why I'd kept school open, and then I'd ask why the kid didn't actually GO to the school I'd kept open, and then I'd hang up and go back to having lunch or watching T.V. or whatever. The kid gets the answer he wants and I lose five minutes out of my day. Whoopdee shit.

Samarra

24th January 2008, 10:46 PM

Cavatica

24th January 2008, 10:47 PM

Not that this fits in that category, but I can hardly believe prank calls to people, whether you know who they are or not, started with my generation.
I know for a fact they didn't, because my father is 58 years old and I'm pretty sure he wrote the book on prank calls.

Milo

24th January 2008, 10:51 PM

The only protocol for appropriate times to call that I ever learned was not after 9:00 PM.

This is certainly blurring. I usually avoid calling house phones much later than 9:00, but I have no compulsion about calling a friend's cell phone at one in the morning (depends on the friend, of course.)

C_ris

24th January 2008, 10:53 PM

It could be called "inappropriate", if you really wanted to stretch the definition, but certainly not rude!

Calla

24th January 2008, 11:35 PM

Beacuse it is rude. Was his phone call about something important? Some dire emergency? Nope. He called on his lunch break, when he was already at school. Poor little man needed to know why the person in charge had not closed the schools. Ridiculous.

You do not call anyone at home unless it is something important. His question was irrelevant. If he must have this question answered, he could email, send a letter or leave a message at his office.

You do not call people at home for this kind of thing.

I still don't understand why it was rude. It was a call related to his job. No one has said that the caller was rude on the phone, just that he asked a question and left his name and phone number so his call could be returned.

I just don't see the big deal. If I have questions of public officials, I expect answers. And if you (as a public official) leave your home number published, expect to get calls at home. To me that is permission to call the home. If he didn't want calls at home, have the number unlisted.

Bobbsy

25th January 2008, 12:32 AM

Let's turn this around though.

As Calla and Cav say, by allowing his home number to listed, the public official is, in effect, giving permission for that number to be used. I suspect that in the USA, as with the UK and Australia, officials who allow their numbers to be listed are probably in a minority and should be respected for this decision.

Part of this respect, in my opinion anyway, is the implication that the home number should only be used for dire emergencies or matters of extreme substance. Abusing the published number can only lead to the official involved changing his number and removing the listing. If this happens...and it's my turn to offer Cavatica a bet that it will...this 17 year old "snot nosed brat" will be the reason that RESPONSIBLE adults lose a channel of communication with the official.

As has been pointed out, this wasn't a call at the beginning of the day when the decision was being taken; the 17 year old was already at school and halfway through his day. I also note that the news story makes no mention of a general public clamour from parents that the decision was wrong. It has no quotes from the local police saying the travel was dangerous and no indication from the weather office that conditions were worsening. Knowing how papers cover a story, you can be pretty sure that the reporter would have included such information if there was any hint that the decision was wrong. The press love to expose mistakes by public officials.

No, I'm afraid I view the initial call as more of a teenage prank than a legitimate query. I can just see a group of teenagers winding each other up over lunch that they wish they had a snow day and one of them making the call to show off. Generation gap maybe, but I put young Dave Kori in the same category as Bart Simpson's calls to Moe's Tavern rather than seeing it a legitmate access to a public official.

Very obviously the wife's response was totally inappropriate too, as well as damaging to her husband. As for posting the recording on the Internet, I'm in partial agreement with Cav that, in this day and age, it is to be expected. It was foolish for Mrs. Tistadt to leave herself open to the risk. However, this does not mean that I think it it RIGHT for the recording to posted. As inappropriate as Mrs. Tistadt's behaviour was, SHE is not a public official and posting a recording of her on the Internet without permission was an invasion of privacy. YouTube obviously agree since the "video" has been pulled down--and their standards are pretty lax.

I find myself in at least partial agreement with Faren when she says there are differing attitudes to privacy. I'm another who would consider an inappropriate call to my phone an imposition. However, I'm not sure whether this is a generation gap or just differences between people and their attitudes.

In any case, to return to Calla's original point: I think there is evidence that Cori's original call WAS rude...or inappropriate...or a prank...or something else but what it was NOT was legitmate access to a public official. As stated above, I fear that the end result will be that people who may NEED this access no longer being able to find the number listed.

Bobbsy

Lady Arwyn

25th January 2008, 01:47 AM

In some states public officials are *required* to publish personal information about address and phone number. At least their address to prove their right to hold the office. It's part of the "Sunshine Laws" that prevent government officials from making decisions without the input of the citizens.

The US Supreme Court has found that public officials have no legal expectation of privacy. It's a price of being a public official.

If information disclosure is not part of the Virginia Sunshine Law, in the information age it's not really hard to find an unlisted phone number. In my media classes we're actually trained on how to do it, it's so easy I would be surprised if a tech-savvy teen couldn't.

Indeed, different states have different laws regarding the use of recordings (http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html). Colorado is a one-party state, only one person in the conversation needs to know they are being recorded. California is an all-party state, everyone must know that the call is being recorded.

If I called California from Colorado and wanted to record the call I must use the more strict standard. If I called Minnesota (a one-party state) from Colorado I would not need to tell anyone.

Virginia is a one-party state. If he got her on the phone and she said that live, and he recorded it without telling her, he is within his legal rights to do so and do what he wishes with the recording.

However, even if Virginia was an all-party state he would be within his rights to publish the recording, she obviously knew she was being recorded if she left the message, and he knew the call was recorded on his phone. No one was duped here. She was stupid.

mawofone

25th January 2008, 02:32 AM

I would never call any one at home for a bussiness matter, But it is not always rude to do so. The wife should have let her husband handle the matter & remembered that the one who called was a teenage boy. Teens do not always think beyond themselves. It probably would never acure to the boy that the call was not approprate. The wife had the bigger responceablity to act like an adult. She was more in the wrong then the teen. If the teen was even in the wrong.
Lesson to be learned ---------- If you do not want it all over the internet do not say or write it.

sglandon

25th January 2008, 02:36 AM

Where's that disclaimer? My phone book is missing it.

I don't believe common courtesy is a phone book issue, thus, the phone company does not deal with it.

Perhaps it is. I wouldn't have considered doing that either, but I don't see anything "wrong" with it. Why have your name in the phone book, especially if you work around/with/having to do with/ making decisions for children? You don't have a right to privacy in a public phone book.

No one has the right to bother you at home unless it is an emergency. I am a teacher. My name is in the phone book. I have no problem if someone (parent, student, whatever) calls me if they need something. If it is important.

It does not seem outrageous to expect to not be aggravated by a stupid child who is either showing off or thinking he is somehow so special that the deserves immediate answers to irrelevant questions.

Samarra

25th January 2008, 02:40 AM

I don't believe common courtesy is a phone book issue, thus, the phone company does not deal with it.

No one has the right to bother you at home unless it is an emergency. I am a teacher. My name is in the phone book. I have no problem if someone (parent, student, whatever) calls me if they need something. If it is important.

It does not seem outrageous to expect to be aggravated by a stupid child who is either showing off or thinking he is somehow so special that the deserves immediate answers to irrelevant questions.

How do you determine what is important? Maybe he had a car accident on the way to school that day! Who knows?
If you publish your information, expect people to use it, especially if you're in charge of snow days. We're talking about one phone call. That's something you ignore if it bothers you, not something you lose your shit over.

Anareth

25th January 2008, 02:42 AM

I agree with Bobbsy. But I also think that it was, if not rude, dumb of the kid to call. I never had a snow day 'til my freshman year of high school when we got a new Superintendant, because we were the district that NEVER closed. As in, EVERY OTHER DISTRICT IN MICHIGAN was closed once, but we were open. I didn't believe my mother when she told me I had a snow day, go back to bed. And never once would it have occured to me to call the Super at home and ask him why. That wasn't my business. We're open, I go, that's all I need to know.

As for posting the recording on the internet, not illegal, perhaps, but not very mature or polite. Brat.

Calla

25th January 2008, 02:44 AM

Let's turn this around though.

As Calla and Cav say, by allowing his home number to listed, the public official is, in effect, giving permission for that number to be used. I suspect that in the USA, as with the UK and Australia, officials who allow their numbers to be listed are probably in a minority and should be respected for this decision.

Part of this respect, in my opinion anyway, is the implication that the home number should only be used for dire emergencies or matters of extreme substance.

Ummmm....No. There is no such implication. I know our (local) officials get calls at home often. Unless they keep thier number unlisted. Many of them make a point of thier "accessability".

Abusing the published number can only lead to the official involved changing his number and removing the listing. If this happens...and it's my turn to offer Cavatica a bet that it will...this 17 year old "snot nosed brat" will be the reason that RESPONSIBLE adults lose a channel of communication with the official.

If an official shuts off access because ONE KID called them, then they obviously can't handle the PR part of their job.

As has been pointed out, this wasn't a call at the beginning of the day when the decision was being taken; the 17 year old was already at school and halfway through his day. I also note that the news story makes no mention of a general public clamour from parents that the decision was wrong. It has no quotes from the local police saying the travel was dangerous and no indication from the weather office that conditions were worsening. Knowing how papers cover a story, you can be pretty sure that the reporter would have included such information if there was any hint that the decision was wrong. The press love to expose mistakes by public officials.

No clue. I would have to backtrack this story to the local level. A national paper may or may not have that in there. It doesn't bother me if the kid called am, noon, or pm. That has zero play for me.

No, I'm afraid I view the initial call as more of a teenage prank than a legitimate query. I can just see a group of teenagers winding each other up over lunch that they wish they had a snow day and one of them making the call to show off. Generation gap maybe, but I put young Dave Kori in the same category as Bart Simpson's calls to Moe's Tavern rather than seeing it a legitmate access to a public official.

No clue...but since the kid left his NAME AND PHONE NUMBER and asked for a call back...I doubt it was a crank call. It may have been rude, it may not have been. I don't know, you don't know. But the fact that the kid left his contact info leads me to discount the possibility that it was a crank call. I mean....come on....

Very obviously the wife's response was totally inappropriate too, as well as damaging to her husband. As for posting the recording on the Internet, I'm in partial agreement with Cav that, in this day and age, it is to be expected. It was foolish for Mrs. Tistadt to leave herself open to the risk. However, this does not mean that I think it it RIGHT for the recording to posted. As inappropriate as Mrs. Tistadt's behaviour was, SHE is not a public official and posting a recording of her on the Internet without permission was an invasion of privacy. YouTube obviously agree since the "video" has been pulled down--and their standards are pretty lax.

I find myself in at least partial agreement with Faren when she says there are differing attitudes to privacy. I'm another who would consider an inappropriate call to my phone an imposition. However, I'm not sure whether this is a generation gap or just differences between people and their attitudes.

In any case, to return to Calla's original point: I think there is evidence that Cori's original call WAS rude...or inappropriate...or a prank...or something else but what it was NOT was legitmate access to a public official. As stated above, I fear that the end result will be that people who may NEED this access no longer being able to find the number listed.

Bobbsy

What do you consider legitimate access to a public official. They get calls at home. *shrug* The kid may or may not have been rude...there is NO evidence either way (unless you know something I don't, if so, share with us all) but a crank call?...really that is reaching too far out on the tree limb.

And again...if the public official is too tramatized by all this and just can't face another call at home...they should get another job.

Calla

25th January 2008, 02:49 AM

No one has the right to bother you at home unless it is an emergency. I am a teacher. My name is in the phone book. I have no problem if someone (parent, student, whatever) calls me if they need something. If it is important.

It does not seem outrageous to expect to not be aggravated by a stupid child who is either showing off or thinking he is somehow so special that the deserves immediate answers to irrelevant questions.

Teachers call me at home. *shrug* Hell...they call me at work for things I consider total BS.

Do you consider a call to lodge a complaint with you about a decision you made an OK thing for someone to call you about?

Ryuu

25th January 2008, 02:57 AM

Actually, laws state that if a telephone call is being recorded, both parties must know that it is, and consent to it.This site (http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html) lists which states have all-party requirements, as well as those with 1-party-consent.

Virginia is a 1-party consent state, so the kid wasn't breaking the law with respect to recording the conversation. Posting it, is perhaps another matter.

Milo

25th January 2008, 02:59 AM

This site (http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html) lists which states have all-party requirements, as well as those with 1-party-concent.

Virginia is a 1-party consent state, so the kid wasn't breaking the law with respect to recording the conversation.

Especially since it... wasn't a conversation. It was a recording on his voice mail.

Samarra

25th January 2008, 03:05 AM

Actually, laws state that if a telephone call is being recorded, both parties must know that it is, and consent to it.

Indeed, different states have different laws regarding the use of recordings (http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html). Colorado is a one-party state, only one person in the conversation needs to know they are being recorded. California is an all-party state, everyone must know that the call is being recorded.

And actually, Gryphon, it appears Missouri is a one-party state, too!

Ryuu

25th January 2008, 03:12 AM

Especially since it... wasn't a conversation. It was a recording on his voice mail.heh!

Woman: But your Honor! I didn't know his voice mail would record my message!

Judge Judy: :roll:GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COURT!

Bobbsy

25th January 2008, 07:49 AM

What do you consider legitimate access to a public official. They get calls at home. *shrug* The kid may or may not have been rude...there is NO evidence either way (unless you know something I don't, if so, share with us all) but a crank call?...really that is reaching too far out on the tree limb.

And again...if the public official is too tramatized by all this and just can't face another call at home...they should get another job.

Well, one part of legitimate access, in my opinion at least, is to call his OFFICE during business hours, not his home. By calling at lunch time, there was no reasonable expectation that Kori would reach the school official and every chance that he would get the man's family. I gather from the news report that the boy had already tried the office but had not been put through.

Just for clarification here, since Tinstadt is billed as the Chief Operating Officer for the school district, it is my assumption that he is an administrative employee (albeit a high-ranking one), NOT an elected official. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming I'm right about his employee status, his wife has no "PR responsibility" like a politicians spouse might...and should not suffer harassment from anyone, particularly not an insolent student who just wanted a day off school.

If you wanted to complain about medical treatment, would you call the doctor's wife during office hours? If you wanted to complain about a court case, would you call the lawyer's wife at lunch time? Probably not. Why then is it acceptable to harass a school administrator's wife just because his job is paid for by public money?

Let's not forget the other part of the Internet saga. It wasn't just Kori's call: he also published the home number on the net and encouraged others to make harassing calls to try and force a "snow day". We'll never know for sure but I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the vast majority of calls made were from students out to get a day off at any cost, as opposed to concerned parents. Actively encouraging this level of harassment suggests to me that his motives were selfish and irresponsible, not honourable.

Finally, a word about snow days themselves. I don't know about US states but in both Canada and the UK I know that schools have a statutory responsibility to remain open unless there is a strong body of evidence that the weather represents a genuine danger. In both Canada and the UK, the school officials don't take the decision unilaterally but, rather, after considering advice on road/traffic conditions and the weather forecasts. Factored into the equation is the potential danger to students who may be unsupervised at home (or out and about) if both parents work. In short, declaring is snow day is a serious decision, far beyond simply declaring an extra holiday for students. I don't know how much of this applies in the US, but I'd be surprised if most of the same considerations don't apply.

I mention all this because there is every chance that, although the COO is the "face" of the decision, he's probably operating within a well-defined set of guidelines. This is just another reason why harassing him or his family is inappropriate...or, to use an unpopular word, rude.

Bobbsy

sglandon

25th January 2008, 10:04 AM

Teachers call me at home. *shrug* Hell...they call me at work for things I consider total BS.

Do you consider a call to lodge a complaint with you about a decision you made an OK thing for someone to call you about?

I am at work from 7:15 in the morning until almost 4:00 most days. That administrator is probably there much longer. That is more than adequate enough time to call if you are unhappy about something. Just because someone is a public servant does not mean that someone should have 24/7 access to them for any old thing. Again, he was calling his HOME to ask a question that was irrelevant. He is not entitled to bug adults about ridiculous things.

Calla

25th January 2008, 01:39 PM

Well, one part of legitimate access, in my opinion at least, is to call his OFFICE during business hours, not his home. By calling at lunch time, there was no reasonable expectation that Kori would reach the school official and every chance that he would get the man's family. I gather from the news report that the boy had already tried the office but had not been put through.

Just for clarification here, since Tinstadt is billed as the Chief Operating Officer for the school district, it is my assumption that he is an administrative employee (albeit a high-ranking one), NOT an elected official. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Assuming I'm right about his employee status, his wife has no "PR responsibility" like a politicians spouse might...and should not suffer harassment from anyone, particularly not an insolent student who just wanted a day off school.

If you wanted to complain about medical treatment, would you call the doctor's wife during office hours? If you wanted to complain about a court case, would you call the lawyer's wife at lunch time? Probably not. Why then is it acceptable to harass a school administrator's wife just because his job is paid for by public money?

Let's not forget the other part of the Internet saga. It wasn't just Kori's call: he also published the home number on the net and encouraged others to make harassing calls to try and force a "snow day". We'll never know for sure but I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the vast majority of calls made were from students out to get a day off at any cost, as opposed to concerned parents. Actively encouraging this level of harassment suggests to me that his motives were selfish and irresponsible, not honourable.

Finally, a word about snow days themselves. I don't know about US states but in both Canada and the UK I know that schools have a statutory responsibility to remain open unless there is a strong body of evidence that the weather represents a genuine danger. In both Canada and the UK, the school officials don't take the decision unilaterally but, rather, after considering advice on road/traffic conditions and the weather forecasts. Factored into the equation is the potential danger to students who may be unsupervised at home (or out and about) if both parents work. In short, declaring is snow day is a serious decision, far beyond simply declaring an extra holiday for students. I don't know how much of this applies in the US, but I'd be surprised if most of the same considerations don't apply.

I mention all this because there is every chance that, although the COO is the "face" of the decision, he's probably operating within a well-defined set of guidelines. This is just another reason why harassing him or his family is inappropriate...or, to use an unpopular word, rude.

Bobbsy

This is what I just don't get. Public Officials (elected or otherwise) get calls at home. They do. That is just not unusual. I chatted with a few school officials here...to see if I was insane...and they said that they get calls. And while they don't want a ton of them, they have their home phone number listed specifically so that people know they can be called at home. A comparasion to a private sector employee (like a Dr.) is not a valid comparasion. But yeah...Dr's also get calls at home. Yes, my husband get calls at home at all hours and I do take messages and not all of them are from happy campers.

I don't think the problem is that he got a call at home, but that he got a call from a student, his wife was a shit, it became public, and now he is embarrassed. If the kid had left a rude call...he would be in trouble for it. As it stands now, he isn't. I don't see how placing a call, leaving your name and number for a return call is harrassment. If so....I am harrassed 24/7.

If the same call had been made by an adult...I doubt people would be talking about how "rude" it was.

The assumption is made, that because it was a teen, the call was automatically rude. Now, it may have been. It might not have been. We don't know. The same could be said for an adult. IF the message in the call was polite, is the call still rude?

The internet stuff is another matter. And is separate from "Is it rude to call a school official at home?"

****************

What I consider off topic....

About snow days in the USA. In most school districts it is up to the Super or whatever title is the same. In urban areas this is pretty easy, are the streets plowed yet? In mixed (town and country) it is different. In our school dist. we have very few snow days. Even if the buses can't get to the kids who live in the country, they rarely call a snow day. That means the parents of the kids in the rural areas are pretty ticked off because their kid misses a day. Not a big deal, right? Kind of. In our district, if a student misses more than 3 days in a quarter, their parents have to go before a truency board that consists of a social worker, a school official, and someone from the courts system. They make the determination if the absences were allowable or if the parent is negligent. So the parent has to take a day off work to do this. And guess what? Most of these cases are rural kids in the two winter quarters. If a family wants to go on vacation, you need to get it approved by the school ahead of time. It isn't the same everywhere, but that's why people here get so up in arms about snow days. But all of that is a side conversation. The main point on snow days is that in a country where so much is rural...having a snow fall creates little problem for some and a huge problem for others.

Calla

25th January 2008, 01:41 PM

Cavatica

25th January 2008, 01:49 PM

I am at work from 7:15 in the morning until almost 4:00 most days. That administrator is probably there much longer. That is more than adequate enough time to call if you are unhappy about something. Just because someone is a public servant does not mean that someone should have 24/7 access to them for any old thing.
Dude. The kid tried to call the superintendent at work. He didn't answer. That doesn't mean he was right to call him at home, but he DID make an effort to reach him at work first. Did you actually read the article?

Again, he was calling his HOME to ask a question that was irrelevant. He is not entitled to bug adults about ridiculous things.But it would have been okay if an ADULT had called the guy's house? Come on. Your whole argument here is that teenagers are sub-human. Like, your whole problem with this is that the offender was a minor. What's THAT all about?

Mawofone was completely right in pointing out that they're really ego-centric and tend not to think about the long-term consequences of their immediate desires, but you don't handle that by screaming at them.

I mean, you said you're a teacher, right? So what do you do when your students come to class late? Slap their wrists with a stiff ruler? Freak out in front of 20 other people about irresponsible little shits they are? You'd look like a raving lunatic, even if you were right.

Kids have poor judgment sometimes. But no one got hurt from a freaking phone call. Candy Tistadt got offended because she chose to be offended.

Bobbsy

25th January 2008, 02:15 PM

Cav & Calla...

Both of you ask if it would have been acceptable for an adult to make the call that started all the discussion.

My answer is in three parts.

First, it would be entirely acceptable for an adult to call the office to recommend a snow day if they had genuine concerns about safety. I find it unacceptable for a student to make this call when they are ALREADY SAFELY AT SCHOOL.

However, I would say that, even for an adult, calling a home number during office hours is not acceptable. Since the COO was known to be at work (even if not able to accept calls) phoning the home could never achieve anything other than inconveniencing the administrator's family.

Finally, calls to the administrator's home out of hours might be acceptable from adults or students depending on content--but it would have to be something the couldn't wait until office hours or, for some reason, couldn't be discussed through normal channels. For example, a student might be fully justified in calling to report bullying if it was not being dealt with effectively through normal channels. However, general, run-of-the-mill enquiries or comments can surely wait until office hours or be dealt with in writing.

Bobbsy

Cavatica

25th January 2008, 02:41 PM

Oh, for Pete's sake, it's just a goddamn telephone.

Calla

25th January 2008, 03:57 PM

Faren

25th January 2008, 05:23 PM

I seriously doubt the call itself was rude. It was probably over the top polite (for those of you that remember, think of Eddie Haskell from "Leave it to Beaver") which might be responsible for the "snot-nosed kid" remark. :rolleyes:

Regardless, the wife was completely out of line in her response. she should have let her husband handle it.

But then the student compounded the error by putting their home phone number on his facebook account and encouraging folks to call it. That WAS an invasion of privacy, IMO. The you-tube thing wasn't nice, but that wasn't the worst thing done.

sglandon

25th January 2008, 08:34 PM

Do you call parents at home?

"to ask a question that was irrelevant" That would be subjective.

"He is not entitled to bug adults " I bet you are a very fine teacher... open to questions...someone kids can really learn from.

Wow. Okay, not to get all defensive, but I did say that I make it clear to parents that if they need something outside of work hours there is no problem in calling me at home. I've had homework question calls and "What about this project?" calls and all kinds of questions. Only had one truly obnoxious parent out of hundreds.

And actually, I am considered to be a very fine teacher, just to make that one clear. I have many parent requests every year. Somehow, I have managed to teach hundreds of kids well and make their both their parents and my adminsitrators pretty happy, too. I am relatively certain that kids have no problem asking me anything, since they do - all day long. :whee:

I am only making the point about him being a kid because I would hope adults would be more polite and show common sense about what normal boundaries should be.

My only issue with this whole thing is that he had no REASON to call him at home, other than to satisfy his own curiosity or make some point. In my definition of politeness, that is something that one just does not do. The man's wife lost it, and it was completely inappropriate, but if they get a lot of calls like that, I can certainly see why she went off.

sglandon

25th January 2008, 08:46 PM

Dude. The kid tried to call the superintendent at work. He didn't answer. That doesn't mean he was right to call him at home, but he DID make an effort to reach him at work first. Did you actually read the article?

But it would have been okay if an ADULT had called the guy's house? Come on. Your whole argument here is that teenagers are sub-human. Like, your whole problem with this is that the offender was a minor. What's THAT all about?

Mawofone was completely right in pointing out that they're really ego-centric and tend not to think about the long-term consequences of their immediate desires, but you don't handle that by screaming at them.

I mean, you said you're a teacher, right? So what do you do when your students come to class late? Slap their wrists with a stiff ruler? Freak out in front of 20 other people about irresponsible little shits they are? You'd look like a raving lunatic, even if you were right.

Kids have poor judgment sometimes. But no one got hurt from a freaking phone call. Candy Tistadt got offended because she chose to be offended.

Dude, I did read the whole article, and listened to the woman's rant before it was taken down.

I strongly believe that in this case, there is no reason for someone in that position to be bothered at home. No matter whether it is an adult or child. Definitely a "leave a message at the office" thing. I assumed (dangerous, I know) that what I consider to be common courtesy was a little more widespread. I was mistaken.

That's all.

Calla

25th January 2008, 09:22 PM

Wow. Okay, not to get all defensive, but I did say that I make it clear to parents that if they need something outside of work hours there is no problem in calling me at home. I've had homework question calls and "What about this project?" calls and all kinds of questions. Only had one truly obnoxious parent out of hundreds.

And actually, I am considered to be a very fine teacher, just to make that one clear. I have many parent requests every year. Somehow, I have managed to teach hundreds of kids well and make their both their parents and my adminsitrators pretty happy, too. I am relatively certain that kids have no problem asking me anything, since they do - all day long. :whee:

I am only making the point about him being a kid because I would hope adults would be more polite and show common sense about what normal boundaries should be.

My only issue with this whole thing is that he had no REASON to call him at home, other than to satisfy his own curiosity or make some point. In my definition of politeness, that is something that one just does not do. The man's wife lost it, and it was completely inappropriate, but if they get a lot of calls like that, I can certainly see why she went off.

I can understand that. But your previous statements sounded like no kid should "bug" an adult. Which...coming from someone who answers kids questions on a daily basis sounded bugshit crazy.

Bobbsy

26th January 2008, 12:09 AM

Oh, for Pete's sake, it's just a goddamn telephone.

This may bring us neatly back to Faren's original point about a generation gap in terms of attitudes to being "reachable". Other than friends and family, I find phone calls an intrusion.

(To be fair, I'm only partially convinced that it's a generational issue and suspect it may just be personal preference. In my case, I spent many years in a job where I was officially expected to be on call at home...and came to dread the ringing of the phone at strange hours. This may colour my opinion on the issue!)

Bobbsy

mawofone

26th January 2008, 12:58 AM

In Virginia each distric set there own schudeled days. They gernerly build in several snow days. After that days are added on to the end of the year or schools go on holidays or even saturdays. Schools have even been known to start schools earlier or stay latter to get in the required time. If a distric has a certain amount of snow days then they can open before labor day. I they do not have that many snow days then they have to wait until after laborday. I think sometimes here anyway they call for snow days just so they can open earlier.
The public schools make know since in what they do. I do not have to worry about it. Kibbie does try to say that she should have asnow day when every one else does, but I do not agree. I do sometimes give her the day off. I just depends on how much work she has been doing

chrysalis

26th January 2008, 01:09 AM

Samarra

26th January 2008, 02:07 AM

Actually I believe you have to have a persons permission to record the phone conversation. That is why when you call companies some give you the option of having the call recorded, or a recording says the call may be recorded, or the rep will ask or state directly to you about recording a conversation.

We've been over this multiple times already in this thread: It varies from state to state (which is why most businesses go ahead and notify you anyway). In VA, it is not illegal if one party consents. Besides that, unless she's a complete moron, she's aware that leaving a voice-mail is a recording.

Cavatica

26th January 2008, 07:03 PM

This may bring us neatly back to Faren's original point about a generation gap in terms of attitudes to being "reachable". Other than friends and family, I find phone calls an intrusion.
Then why do you have a telephone? For people NOT to reach you?

I mean, I find phone calls intrusive if the nature of the call is intrusive, like if it's a telemarketer or it comes when I'm in the middle of a meal, a huge shit, or hawt s3xX0rz. So I signed up for the Do-Not-Call list and I don't pick up the phone when I'm otherwise, eh, occupied.

My boyfriend doesn't like the idea of being accessible to anyone at any time. So he doesn't own a cell phone. (Though we'll probably be getting him one soon anyway, because it's getting to be too much of a pain in the ass trying to reach one another with only the one cell phone to share.) If and when he does own one, it's his prerogative to see who's calling and not answer, or simply to turn it off altogether. I've owned a cell phone for years, but I'm not one of those people who keeps it glued to her head: I use it for long-distance calls to family, for emergencies, and for calling the office to tell them I'm stuck in morning rush hour. Other than that, I don't feel obliged to use it.

Same goes for land lines. Get caller ID or just don't frakking pick it up. It's YOUR home. You don't have any obligation to talk to anyone if you don't want to.

But if you DO pick it up, then it's not the caller's fault if you decide to get all pissy about being interrupted.

Bobbsy

27th January 2008, 12:19 AM

Cavatica, now you're just being disingenuous in the extreme.

Why do I have a phone? To stay in touch with friends, family and people to whom we have given our number for a purpose. Before you ask, yes we pay a bit extra to be unlisted.

The same applies in reverse to my cell phone. THIS is the only number published on my business cards and stationery and it has an efficient voice mail system so if I choose not to pick it up, I can still get messages. Obviously, friends and family have the number as well, for pretty well the same reasons you list for yourself.

Caller ID? Yup, we have that. Guess what? Anyone unlisted like us doesn't show up. It used to be if it said "Private number" you could pretty much guess it was a business, usually a telemarketer, but nowadays it can just as easily be a friend from down the road who's simply chosen not to reveal his number.

Are phone calls an intrusion? Let me rephrase what I said. UNSOLICITED phone calls are an intrusion and an invasion of privacy just as much as somebody knocking at your door. In our case, because of the unlisted number, pretty well all such unsolicited calls are telemarketers who are actually breaking the law. Here in the "downunder" they're not allowed to call unlisted numbers. They still do, but a mention of "unlisted" gets them to hang up pretty quickly!

In any case, none of that has much to do with the original topic here. The incident in the news story involved a minor (with a "minor" gripe...pun intended) calling a home number during office hours (so he was pretty well guaranteed to hassle family members who with nothing to do with his complaint) then using the internet to organise a campaign of harassment. Yes, the wife was stupid and pissy in the extreme but does this give a teenager the right to organise a campaign of harassment through the night? How about you? Should AMCF members start an "annoy Cavatica" telephone campaign every time you make a post some people don't like?

Bobbsy

Cavatica

27th January 2008, 03:34 AM

In any case, none of that has much to do with the original topic here. The incident in the news story involved a minor (with a "minor" gripe...pun intended) calling a home number during office hours (so he was pretty well guaranteed to hassle family members who with nothing to do with his complaint) then using the internet to organise a campaign of harassment. I don't think it's cool that he put her phone number on the 'net, but he's not the first person to put an angry phone message on the 'net, and he won't be the last. I'm all for a little public humiliation to teach the hard lessons-- and it's not like he's getting off Scott-free by doing it. The kid had his name all over the Washington Post; he's just as likely to get chastised by uppity old fogeys as Candy Tistadt is likely to be harassed by self-righteous, egocentric teenagers.

Should AMCF members start an "annoy Cavatica" telephone campaign every time you make a post some people don't like?Your analogy is completely specious, and you know that. You also know perfectly well that I'm not advocating that kind of revenge as the most constructive means of conflict resolution. I am saying that Ms. Tistadt needs to be more careful where she leaves her Crazy.

Anareth

27th January 2008, 05:04 AM

Regarding having a phone: I own a phone so I can call someone if I want/need to. I don't own a phone so they can contact me. I pretty much always let my phone go to voice mail, and if I want to call you back, I will. If I have time. If I feel like it. Odds are, if you're not calling about a lesson or a job interview, I'm not going to. If you're really important you have the e-mail that I actually check routinely. At school (ie work for me) I answer the phone because we're obliged to. But not only had you better not call me outside work, I strongly suspect speaking to you (student or parent) outside work could get me written up.

Again: She shouldn't have yelled. He shouldn't have called. And never mind the recording, he sure as hell shouldn't have posted her phone number.

Bobbsy

27th January 2008, 06:03 AM

<snip>

Your analogy is completely specious, and you know that. You also know perfectly well that I'm not advocating that kind of revenge as the most constructive means of conflict resolution. I am saying that Ms. Tistadt needs to be more careful where she leaves her Crazy.

I'm not so sure. In post 4 of this thread (your first contribution) you said:

Even if the kid was out of line in calling Mr. Tistadt (God, what a horrible name), Candy Tistadt (man, that's even WORSE) was hugely out of line in her response. I mean, like, Crazy Bitch Syndrome out of line. She's obviously got some bottled-up anger about her husband's schedule, but she needs to rein that shit in. Whether she likes it or not, everything she says reflects upon her husband's capacity as a school official, and she's doing him a serious disservice by using phrases like "snotty-nosed little brats." I mean, have you guys actually listened to the call? Bitch has some issues, for serious.

And as for that being spread around the Internet, I'm all for everyone knowing about her Crazy. And I'd be willing to lay money down that there's nothing illegal about it, either.

Your last paragraph sounded very much to me like you were "advocating that kind of revenge" or, at very least, condoning it as appropriate. I'm very glad to hear that's not the case. Just because the Internet makes this sort of instant publicity and campaign possible, it doesn't make it right.

Everyone, including you and me, have at some point reacted precipitously and angrily to provocation. Occasionally the provocation merits it but usually it's just the culmination of a series of events: in other words "having a bad day". Mrs. Tistadt (and, hell, I agree with you about the name every time I type it...and can't bring myself to include the "Candy") was stupid but everybody is sometimes. However, I have to believe the treatment she received was wrong. Put another way, when apportioning blame on this story, I consider impulsive stupidity the lesser of two evils compared to deliberate harassment.

Bobbsy