Nancy Sebring - DM Superintendant resigns

**weR138** · 06-05-2012, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by 3TrueFans

Just seems like a big deal being made over someone using company property to send personal emails. I mean unless we're talking about hundreds and hundreds of emails how much wasted time are we really talking about here?

You're right which is why IMO there's more to the story. It wouldn't surprise anyone to find out somebody had an ax to grind with Sebring. Maybe somebody was p***ed that she was leaving DSM for Omaha. There's a lot of people with an inferiority complex down there. Somebody ****ed her good (and I'm not talking about John Holmes w/ tats guy). She's essentially been fired twice and will lose $275K annual salary from the Omaha job.

**Trice** · 06-05-2012, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclone06

Your right. It just so happens that those emails insinuate a relationship beyond friendship with someone who was not her spouse. If she'd cheat on her spouse, chances are she'll cheat at work as well. Employers still care about morale character. Atleast I hope they do.

That's really a poor argument. Lots of people cheat on their spouses - including many, I would assume, who are considered upstanding employees. Most just don't send emails about it that get published in the paper.

Besides - and I'm going from memory here so I could certainly be wrong - but I recall reading that she and her husband lived apart and were all but divorced anyway.

**3TrueFans** · 06-05-2012, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclone06

You're right. It just so happens that those emails insinuate a relationship beyond friendship with someone who was not her spouse. If she'd cheat on her spouse, chances are she'll cheat at work as well. Employers still care about morale character. Atleast I hope they do.

Whoa, did you hurt yourself when you stretched to make that argument?

**Cyclone06** · 06-05-2012, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Trice

That's really a poor argument. Lots of people cheat on their spouses - including many, I would assume, who are considered upstanding employees. Most just don't send emails about it that get published in the paper.

Besides - and I'm going from memory here so I could certainly be wrong - but I recall reading that she and her husband lived apart and were all but divorced anyway.

Poor argument? If you say so. Im not interested in people who cheat, in whatever manner, even if its what everyone is doing.

If they were "divorced" well then that is something else but I haven't seen that in any of the articles.

**gogagig** · 06-05-2012, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclone06

You're right. It just so happens that those emails insinuate a relationship beyond friendship with someone who was not her spouse. If she'd cheat on her spouse, chances are she'll cheat at work as well. Employers still care about morale character. Atleast I hope they do.

Not sure I agree here. Just because you are cheating in one aspect of your life, doesn't mean you will cheat in another. Just because I log on to Cyclone Fanatic from work doesn't mean I'll cheat on my wife.

**Trice** · 06-05-2012, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclone06

Poor argument? If you say so. Im not interested in people who cheat, in whatever manner, even if its what everyone is doing.

If they were "divorced" well then that is something else but I haven't seen that in any of the articles.

Well, in theory I don't think there are many of us who want to associate with people who cheat.

But in reality, that really doesn't matter. Because if the statistics are true, they're probably your co-workers, your friends, and perhaps even your relatives. And unless you can read someone's mind to know what they're doing - or their emails get published in the paper - you might never know.

But it's naive to think it isn't happening.

**NickTheGreat** · 06-05-2012, 12:31 PM

Omaha schools gave a gift to DSM schools a la Creighton and McDermott.

**Clone5** · 06-05-2012, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Trice

That's really a poor argument. Lots of people cheat on their spouses - including many, I would assume, who are considered upstanding employees. Most just don't send emails about it that get published in the paper.

Besides - and I'm going from memory here so I could certainly be wrong - but I recall reading that she and her husband lived apart and were all but divorced anyway.

I believe her husband lives in Colorado and they never had any intention of living together again.

**DistrictCyclone** · 06-05-2012, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone06

You're right. It just so happens that those emails insinuate a relationship beyond friendship with someone who was not her spouse. If she'd cheat on her spouse, chances are she'll cheat at work as well. Employers still care about morale character. Atleast I hope they do.

The ONLY issues of any relevance are that she: A) used government property to conduct personal business, and B) transmitted sexually graphic material using a public resource. Her marital status is, and should be, completely irrelevant. It's shameful that so many of the news media (and their tabloid-obsessed consumers) seem to be focusing on this salacious detail rather than the actual infractions.

**Cyclonestate78** · 06-05-2012, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by gogagig

Not sure I agree here. Just because you are cheating in one aspect of your life, doesn't mean you will cheat in another. Just because I log on to Cyclone Fanatic from work doesn't mean I'll cheat on my wife.

At the end of the day it all comes down to the setting and the subject. If this was a supervisor at Firestone sending out these emails would people be upset? Probably not. If this was the manager of a local restaurant sending out these emails would people be upset? Probably not. If this was the CEO at Principal sending out these emails would people be upset? Probably not. When it is a person that is collecting a fat paycheck that is paid with money directly from the taxpayers... people are going to be upset. When it is someone that works on the behalf of kids, works directly with kids, etc.... people are going to be upset. Most people would agree that the setting of schools and the subjects of children, sex, and sexually explicit material should never mix, shouldn't be allowed to mix, and it certainly won't be tolerated if they do.

**Cycsk** · 06-05-2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by chuckd4735

When the e-mail you're using is subsidized through the tax payers, you make it everyone's business. As a government employee, we are reminded of this frequently. Had she used her own personal e-mail (i.e. G-mail), this wouldn't be an issue. My assumption is that is the exact reason why the DM Reg. did not release the name of the person on the other side...he was using a personal e-mail account.

It wasn't just that she used the school email account, but also that she used school equipment and during business hours.

She admits that she knew the policy and wrongly let herself violate it.

**Clone5** · 06-05-2012, 01:16 PM

I just don't understand how a person who is obviously pretty smart and successful can be dumb enough to send e-mails about a guy's dick using the school e-mail. She must not know gmail exists.

**Clone5** · 06-05-2012, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclonestate78

At the end of the day it all comes down to the setting and the subject. If this was a supervisor at Firestone sending out these emails would people be upset? Probably not. If this was the manager of a local restaurant sending out these emails would people be upset? Probably not. If this was the CEO at Principal sending out these emails would people be upset? Probably not. When it is a person that is collecting a fat paycheck that is paid with money directly from the taxpayers... people are going to be upset. When it is someone that works on the behalf of kids, works directly with kids, etc.... people are going to be upset. Most people would agree that the setting of schools and the subjects of children, sex, and sexually explicit material should never mix, shouldn't be allowed to mix, and it certainly won't be tolerated if they do.

She did not work directly with students. Indirectly yes, but directly no.
I agree with the rest of what you said by the way.

**Rabbuk** · 06-05-2012, 01:18 PM

Or texting...

**Trice** · 06-05-2012, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclonestate78

At the end of the day it all comes down to the setting and the subject. If this was a supervisor at Firestone sending out these emails would people be upset? Probably not. If this was the manager of a local restaurant sending out these emails would people be upset? Probably not. If this was the CEO at Principal sending out these emails would people be upset? Probably not. When it is a person that is collecting a fat paycheck that is paid with money directly from the taxpayers... people are going to be upset. When it is someone that works on the behalf of kids, works directly with kids, etc.... people are going to be upset. Most people would agree that the setting of schools and the subjects of children, sex, and sexually explicit material should never mix, shouldn't be allowed to mix, and it certainly won't be tolerated if they do.

This is really wrong on a lot of levels. First, I'm not even really sure that *people* are upset here. Everyone acknowledges she did something wrong, but using work email for personal use is a relatively small offense. It's all about the sex. Most negative reaction I've seen seems to be, like yours, resentment at her salary more than her actual deeds.

Second, "the subjects of children, sex, and sexually explicit material" aren't mixing. She's not sharing sexually explicit material with kids. News flash: grown ups have sex. Even teachers. Even preachers. She has not harmed children in any way.