HARTN ELL
CO LLEG E
I
8 january 20 I 3
Dear Colleagues,
During my first 6 rnonths I have observed and been the recipient of quite a few ernail
communications that have been sent to "all" employees. With rare exception, most of these
commlrnications have not been appropriate to send to all ernployees. Here are a fbw examples:
communicatior-r that student-athletes will be travelling to an away contest
agenda lbr an Academic Senate rneeting
congratulating a group or individual regarding an award or accomplishment
concerns about a specific student's behavior or the investigation/disciplinary process
asking tor opinions about a particular college operational mafter or issue
requesting assistance with the operation of the urline course managemeut system
a
a
41 1 CENTRAL AVENUE
a
SALINAS, CA 93901
a
www. h artn
e
a
ll . ed u
a
WILTARD LEWALLEN, PH.D.
SUPERINTEN DENT/PRESIDENT
831-755-6900
B I 1-l 5)-7 941
(ELL: Bl1-682-3541
wlewallen@hartnell.edu
FAX:
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Presldent
CANDI DEPAU\il
District 7
Vice Presldent
PATRICIA DONOHUE
District
l
These are just a few examples of the ty'pes of communications I anr referencing. Most are
appropriately sent to a specific group or individual for which it has relevance. Others are more
appropriate to a newsletter, rveekly repofi, help desk, press release, blog, survey. web site entry or
other communication rnechanism.
After these comn-runications are sent there are often replies that go to "all" as well. I know that
these cornmunications are well-intentioned so please be aware that I atn not beirrg critical of
anyone sending these communications and/or responding to them. However, these
communications are not an appropriate use of sending an email communication to all
employees. Additionally, these communications clog up everyone's email inbox. Like many of
you, I can receive over 100 emails in one day. F'rom a purely time management perspective,
many of us would appreciate not receiving several emails that are not relevant or useful. An "a11"
communication should be reserved fbr a commurrication that is significantly important and
relevant to all employees.
I am not attentpting to restrict communication or censor any cornmunication. My request is quite
simple. If you are considering sending a cornmunication to all ernployees, please give it careful
thought before doing so in light o1'my comments above. We have the following groups defined
in our email system and I encourage you to use these when appropriate. Subsets of these groups
aro often more appropriate as well and can be created by any employee within his/her own
contact list.
o
r
o
.
DEMETRIO PRUNEDA
District
1
BILL FREEMAN
District 2
ELIA GONZALEZ-CASTRO
District
4
Adrninistrators Mailing List
Full-time !'aculty Mailing List
Paft-time !'aculty Mailing List
Classifled Employees Mailing List
After giving careful consideration to an
"a11" distribution and you decide that the communication
does warrant this type of clistribution, please consider the fbllorving method for sending the
message. Put the "all" entry in the BC: (blind copy) fleld. This email has been sent that
way. This rvay the communication will go to "all," but when someone responds the response will
be sent only to the originator of the message and not "all."
RAY MONTEMAYOR
District
5
ERI(A PADILLA-CHAVEZ
District 6
Student Irusfee
ELAINE DURAN LUCHINI
I have worked at 3 other community college districts and without exception, employees did not
have access to an "all" employee email group. Onlythe president's office and the public
infomation officer had access. At this point I am not restricting access to the "all"
group. l"lowever, I ask that yor.r give careful consideration belbre sending an email to all
employees and equal consideration in responding to all employees.
Regards,
W;tt
r* {tlrtt*'*
Willard Clark Lewallen, Ph.D.
Superintendent/President