Email quarantine: getting it right
Email quarantine: getting it right
Wednesday 28 November, 2018
Councils, like other employers, have obligations to protect their employees from harm. Quarantining abusive or offensive emails is one method of doing so. However, Councils must tread carefully.
In a recent report, the Chief Ombudsman was highly critical of Horowhenua District Council’s previous approach to quarantining emails to staff. Emails from several senders were re-routed to the Chief Executive. The Council had no policy about quarantining emails and its practices were unreasonable. Many emails did not reach the intended recipient despite not being abusive. In several cases there was no record of the reasons why a person’s emails had been quarantined. The Chief Ombudsman noted that in respect of three individuals it was difficult to identify a clear basis to suggest that Council had grounds to add them to the quarantine list. Several people were not notified that their emails were being quarantined. In some cases the quarantine went on for several years without review.
The Chief Ombudsman emphasised that poor record keeping practices fundamentally undermine the operation of LGOIMA and reduce transparency and accountability. Horowhenua has now implemented a quarantine policy which addresses the Chief Ombudsman’s concerns.
For assistance with abusive complainants, including email quarantine policies, please contact Megan Crocket or Kate Cornegé
Related Articles
Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023
Director personal liability more acute as tough times bite business
Tuesday 14 February, 2023
When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022
Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022
Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022
New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022
Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022
Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022
Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021
Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021
Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021
Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021
Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020
Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020
Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019
How can you identify the subject of an anonymous defamatory statement?
Thursday 10 October, 2019
Australian defamation decision raises risk for public Facebook pages
Wednesday 31 July, 2019
Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019
Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019
Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018
Court of Appeal recognises new public interest defence to defamation claims
Thursday 27 September, 2018
High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018
