2008 Woodie Awards
MAIN EDITORIAL
Payment For a Job Done
Issue date: 10/14/04 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
In a relatively slow news week, the main story of interest has been the allegation that Ada Beth Cutler, Dean of the College of Education and Human Services, profesionally abused a subcontractor for the school in what basically qualifies as an act of software piracy.
These charges, made by programmer Sharon Aker, are fairly condemning: she claims the school, for over a year, witheld over $5,000 in payment for a program she wrote, and when she decided to pull the plug, tired of being given the run-around, the school undermined her by changing the codes to a program she still owned.
These are serious accusations; more than just the dollars and cents involved, it is an indictment of the standards and practices of which this school conducts itself in business with its faculty and, in this case, outside parties.
At this time, much of this is still her word against theirs: the school has neither confirmed nor denied the charge that passwords or user accounts were altered. At the same time however, Aker was the architect of these programs, and while no one wants to draw conclusions at this point, there's something to be said when she was unable to access her own programs.
And what is not being contested is the fact that she was owed payment for services rendered for an extended period of time. The school claims that the financial concerns have been satisfied, but let's get this straight: the school was using her program, but delayed paying her for an entire year. Say what you will, but there is simply no excuse for this. Aker claims that her grievances are not in regards to her payment, but still, for an academic institution, this does not serve as a very good example to its students, and does not reflect positively on the administration of this university.
There are still many questions that need to be answered by MSU, and this story is not yet finished. For a school who feels so compelled as to state its "Guidelines for Responsible Computing" on its website for all to see, we gather that this constitutes one of the very violations they rally against. It may be too early to fully examine these charges, but one thing is definitely clear: this school can only be taken as seriously as it takes itself.
These charges, made by programmer Sharon Aker, are fairly condemning: she claims the school, for over a year, witheld over $5,000 in payment for a program she wrote, and when she decided to pull the plug, tired of being given the run-around, the school undermined her by changing the codes to a program she still owned.
These are serious accusations; more than just the dollars and cents involved, it is an indictment of the standards and practices of which this school conducts itself in business with its faculty and, in this case, outside parties.
At this time, much of this is still her word against theirs: the school has neither confirmed nor denied the charge that passwords or user accounts were altered. At the same time however, Aker was the architect of these programs, and while no one wants to draw conclusions at this point, there's something to be said when she was unable to access her own programs.
And what is not being contested is the fact that she was owed payment for services rendered for an extended period of time. The school claims that the financial concerns have been satisfied, but let's get this straight: the school was using her program, but delayed paying her for an entire year. Say what you will, but there is simply no excuse for this. Aker claims that her grievances are not in regards to her payment, but still, for an academic institution, this does not serve as a very good example to its students, and does not reflect positively on the administration of this university.
There are still many questions that need to be answered by MSU, and this story is not yet finished. For a school who feels so compelled as to state its "Guidelines for Responsible Computing" on its website for all to see, we gather that this constitutes one of the very violations they rally against. It may be too early to fully examine these charges, but one thing is definitely clear: this school can only be taken as seriously as it takes itself.