The Virginian-Pilot
©
SUFFOLK
The city's former voter registrar, who reportedly resigned in early August "for personal reasons," now says she was fired by the city's Electoral Board after she disclosed that a member of the board had sent her a pornographic e-mail.
The board member, David Sylvia, acknowledged sending the salacious missive to a bunch of his friends. He insisted that he did not realize that the registrar, Sharon Thornhill, was on the recipient list until she brought it up during her annual employment evaluation.
Other board members present at the Aug. 6 meeting said Sylvia "was devastated" when he learned he had inadvertently sent the message containing a series of nude photos to Thornhill, and "he apologized profusely."
They say Thornhill then attempted to pressure the board into giving her a favorable performance review.
Instead, the board told the registrar to turn in her keys and clean out her desk, and she was escorted out of the building. A week later, Sylvia told a reporter that Thornhill had resigned from her $58,571-a-year job "for personal reasons."
Last week, Thornhill forwarded the e-mail to Suffolk City Manager Selena Cuffee-Glenn, along with a note asking, "Do you think it is professional to have someone on a board for the city sending this kind of e-mail on a city e-mail system?"
On the same day, Cuffee-Glenn alerted the City Council members in a letter describing the e-mail as containing "inappropriate and graphic photographs of a nude individual."
"A similar action by a supervisor or employee of the City of Suffolk, if determined to be founded, would result in a disciplinary action, including possible termination," Cuffee-Glenn wrote.
The e-mail, with the subject line "FW: Putting on a bikini," is a series of 14 pictures of a man body-painting a bikini on a nude woman. The Virginian-Pilot obtained a printed copy of the e-mail from the city.
Cuffee-Glenn also notified the State Board of Elections, which oversees local electoral boards, although not on personnel matters. The Suffolk Electoral Board is appointed by the Suffolk Circuit Court on recommendations from local party chairs.
Thornhill, a city employee for 27 years and the registrar since 2007, said Thursday that she was "embarrassed" when she received the e-mail on her office computer in April.
"I didn't know what to do because it was very inappropriate," Thornhill said.
The message was addressed to five other people, including Electoral Board Chairman Kenneth Carpenter.
"I think he intended to send it to friends he hangs out with," Carpenter said. "He shouldn't have sent it to me. He shouldn't have sent it to her. I told him, 'Don't send me any more like that.' "
Carpenter said Thornhill brought up the e-mail during her evaluation.
"She didn't explain what it was, but I knew," he said.
At that point, Carpenter recalls, Sylvia "was devastated. He said, 'I'm sorry. I apologize. I didn't know I sent it to you. What can I do to make it right?' And she said, 'Give me a good evaluation.' "
Sylvia declined to comment about what happened at the meeting. Thornhill said she gave Sylvia an "ultimatum."
"And these are the words I said: 'I deserve a good evaluation,' " she said. "I did everything I was supposed to do in that office.... They say this because they're trying to cover their backs."
When the meeting ended, board member Beverly Outlaw recalls, Thornhill "left the building at our request. She resigned."
Thornhill insists otherwise.
"They fired me. They asked for my keys, brought in boxes and had the police escort me from the building. Does that sound like being fired? It sure does."
Jeff Sheler, (757) 222-5563 or jeff.sheler@pilotonline.com

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo

Voter registrar and electorial board member
Mr De Silva Electorial board member and in a position over the voter registrar sent a illegal e-mail using the city's system and should be dismissed. There should be no question about that. Ms Thornhill certainly made an error in judgement when she decided not to report the e-mail right away and only after being blindsided by her firing by the errant electorial board member did she expose him. At this point it is murky as to whether Ms Thornhill is a good registrar but it is blatently obvious that Mr DeSilva is a poor candidate for the electorial board and should be wise enough to resign and if not he should be dismissed!!!
Nude Photos had no role in dismassal, official says
Within this and yesterday's related article, the major violation I see is inappropriate use of government (city, state or federal) email. Why are the Electoral Board Employees comfortable sending nude or related photos via official email system and have no problem justifying why the pictures were sent? Are there not guidelines that explicitly spells out what can and cannot be sent via official email. Along with those guidelines, are there not specific consequences mentioned if the guidelines are violated?
Also, does the Electoral Board have on-going sexual harassment training?
In any governmental workforce, we are our brother’s keeper. If a co-worker chooses to include us in a questionable situation, it is our responsibility to address the issue at hand and ensure all involved are aware of the current guidelines.
Just how many people were involved and what were their positions?
Maybe auditing of this board is in order.
Both
Ms Thornhill and Mr Sylvia should be gone. Both acted inappropriately and only one answered for her action. Mr Sylvia is obviously not qualified to use city computers and now cannot function in his position. I find this just par for the course in Suffolk.
Wrong person fired
Sylvia should go.Why did't ANYONE on that mailing list complain at the time? Perhaps a climate of sexual harrassment already existed in that office and everyone was intimidated. Sharon should SUE.
See this
See this sounds like something that could of happened in Norfolk for the employee that didn't show up for twelve years and received a check. The woman in suffolk lost her battle but blackmail happens all the time.
let that be a lesson
When you issue an ultimatum, be prepared to lose.
Actions speak louder then words; betray intent as well.
Both people involved are poor examples of a city worker in any city. Emails sent from work, especially in any government office, should not contain riske' content. Art vs. porn isn't the debate here. It had nothing to do with work and was sent on a work pc, during work hours. The woman chose to save it, unlike a silent, embarassed response (as she claims she was) of deleting the email promptly, or, if she intended on mentioning it at all, going to the HR department promptly. Did she? No, instead she behaved as though it was a stained blue dress, tucking it away until she figured she could get something out of it. Bringing it up much later at her yearly evaluation to the sender was just as inappropriate as the sending of it. Asking in return for a good evaluation is even worse. Fire them both and get someone dedicated to the jobs and earning their checks in their place. One (Norfolk) city circus of corruption, incompetance, and poor judgement is enough in this region. No 'sibling systems' in Suffolk please! Nip this in the bud.
Fire them both.
She should be fired for trying to use the email as leverage and he (Silva) should be fired for inappropriate use of city email. I'm sure email usage and penalties for misuse is spelled out somewhere in the city policy. Simple solution for two stupid people.
Makes no sense
So Thornhill doesn't say anything at all until 4 months later, so she did intend on saving it and using it as leverage. The way it appears to me is that she was was expecting a poor evaluation, otherwise, why would she ask for a good evaluation as leverage?
If she was going to get a poor eval, there must have been something in her performance to indicate that. She was probably close to getting fired anyway, so when she did, I'm betting that it was performance related.
What I don't get is why Sylvia wasn't fired immediately for sending inappropriate email through the city system. I'm sure there's a policy.
ONCE AGAIN
The main point is being missed.
Why do we even need a City Voter Register?