Important Update: Access to Delegated Emails and Google Shared Drives

Justina Nicita

Mar 18, 2026

127

Starting Monday, March 23, the old method (OneLogin) of accessing delegated emails and Google Shared Drives will no longer be available.

For employees who separated more than one year ago, no email or Google drive access will be granted after March 30 without approval.

If you notice a delegated email is missing or you no longer have access to a departmental shared drive, please submit a helpdesk ticket so we can restore access.

Additional information about Google Shared Drives and delegating email accounts can be found below.

Transitioning to Google Shared Drives: A Professional Upgrade
Electronic Correspondence Transparency & Accountability for Departmental Email

Request for Exception to Sender Transparency (DRAFT)

Transitioning to Google Shared Drives: A Professional Upgrade

By moving our departmental files to Shared Drives, we are shifting from a "shared account" model to an "integrated access" model. This change ensures our data is more secure, easier to manage, and seamlessly available within your existing institutional workspace.

This document clarifies why moving to Google Shared Drives is a professional upgrade from our previous departmental account structure. While the old system served us well, this new approach integrates your departmental files into your workspace, removing the need to juggle multiple digital identities. You get the same access to the departmental files, but with the added convenience of access through your own institutional Entra ID.

Note: in this document Shared Drives refers to a specific functionality of Google Workspace and not to RCBC network shares (“S: Drive”) or files/folders shared with you individually as a Google user.

Why Shared Drives?

1. Unified Access (No More Account Switching)

The most immediate benefit is convenience. In the past, accessing departmental files required you to switch to a separate departmental identity via our SSO.

The Shared Drive Advantage: Your departmental files will be available directly inside your own Google Drive sidebar. You no longer need to access the departmental account as the department to access team documents. Everything you need for your daily work is in one place.
Pro Tip: For power users, the search upgrade is huge. Your Google Drive search bar now scans your personal files and all Shared Drives simultaneously. No more switching accounts to find that one specific file.

2. Institutional vs. Account Ownership

While the departmental account previously "owned" the files, that ownership was tied to a single digital identity that had to be managed and secured.

The Shared Drive Advantage: Ownership now sits at the organizational level. This means the department’s "memory" is no longer dependent on a shared account. Access is granted to you as a professional, making the transition between projects or roles much smoother.
Storage Limits: Previously, files in a department’s Drive counted against that account’s storage limit. Although most departments were unlikely to hit that limit, it was possible, at which time hard choices would have had to be made. Files in Shared Drives count against the organization's limit, not that of an individual account.

3. Granular Control and Organization

Shared accounts suffer from "all or nothing" access. If you had the OneLogin tile you could accidentally move or delete anything in that account.

The Shared Drive Advantage: Shared Drives allow for specific roles. We can now assign roles that help prevent accidental data loss and ensure that the folder structure stays exactly how the department intended it.
- Manager: Can manage members, settings, and delete files. (All access).
- Content Manager: Can edit, move, and delete files (Standard access).
- Contributor: Can add and edit files, but cannot delete or move them (Protected access).
Unified Organization: If users in a department shared departmental files with themselves they ended up in the user’s "Shared with Me" which can quickly become a cluttered list of individual files and folders that look different for everyone. A Shared Drive is easy to find and everyone in the department sees the exact same folder structure in their sidebar. If a drive manager organizes a folder or a content manager uploads a file, it is organized for and shared with the entire team, instantly.

Electronic Correspondence Transparency & Accountability for Departmental Email

This document outlines the institutional standard for showing sender information when delegating Google Workspace email access and the formal process for addressing departmental concerns about transparency.

It also provides an appeals process that department heads can use to request an exception to the standard configuration.

1. The Appeals Process

The College is standardizing on a transparent sender model for all departmental accounts that will show the “sent by:” information as well as the departmental account information. To address departmental concerns, if unique operational needs exist, the following formal appeal pathway is established:

Written Submission: The requesting department must submit a formal memorandum to their respective Vice President or C-level executive (e.g., CIO, CFO, COO).
Burden of Proof: The memorandum must explicitly describe why hiding the sender information helps the department fulfill the College's mission better than showing it. Specifically, it must justify why the need for anonymity outweighs the institutional value of trust, accountability and a transparent audit trail.
Executive Review: The VP or C-level executive will review the request and, if supported, address it with the President.
Final Determination: The President maintains final authority. If an exception is granted, the President will communicate the decision and its duration to the CIO for implementation.

A draft “Appeals Template” is provided at the end of this document, for your convenience.

2. Default Configuration

Default Setting: "Show this address and the person who sent it (sent by [email protected])"

What is "Transparent Delegation"?

Transparent delegation ensures that when a staff member sends an email from a shared account (e.g., Library or Financial Aid), the recipient sees both the departmental identity and the specific individual responsible for the communication. This is the opposite of "Institutional Anonymity."

Note: If a recipient hits reply, the response is automatically addressed to the Department, not the person who actually sent it. To reply to the sent by address instead, the recipient would need to take additional steps. Almost all email clients default to this behavior, by design.

3. Justification for Transparency

The transparent sender model is rooted in legal compliance, cybersecurity best practices, and institutional integrity.

A. Legal Compliance & New Jersey Law

NJ Open Public Records Act (OPRA): In New Jersey, email "metadata" (sender, recipient, and time stamps) is legally considered a public record (Paff v. Galloway Township). Hiding the sender at the application level does not exempt the record from OPRA; it merely makes the College's response to legal requests more difficult and prone to error.
Non-Repudiation: Under NJ State Audit standards, the College must maintain "internal controls" ensuring that any official action, including an email commitment, can be traced to a specific authorized user. Transparent delegation provides non-repudiation, preventing a sender from later denying they authored a message.

B. Accountability & Audit Trails

Individual Responsibility: Our default position is consistent with the Acceptable Use Policies of many peers, including Rutgers University, Brookdale Community College, and Rowan College of South Jersey, users are responsible for all activity under their credentials. Masking the sender creates a "shared guilt" environment where a whole department could be held responsible for the actions of one individual.
eDiscovery and Investigation: While Google Vault archives content, it is not designed for real-time attribution of delegated senders. Relying on IT to perform forensic log "lookups" for every disputed email is an inefficient use of institutional resources. A transparent "Sent By" field creates a self-documenting audit trail.

C. National Higher Education Benchmarks

Major institutions across the U.S. mandate transparent delegation to ensure institutional identity is not misused:

Indiana University & University of Arizona: Both require that electronic communications do not obscure the identity of the sender to maintain the integrity of the institution's digital presence.
University of Oregon & Florida State University: These institutions emphasize that transparency protects the employee by providing clear evidence of who was involved in a specific correspondence, preventing "spoofing" or unauthorized use of departmental authority.

D. Data Privacy (FERPA)

Under FERPA, the College must maintain records of who accesses or discloses student information. If a departmental account is used to share student data, the "Sent By" tag serves as a critical component of the required access log, ensuring the College remains compliant with federal privacy laws.

4. Summary of Institutional Risk (Sender Hidden)

Hiding the actual sender introduces three primary risks:

Operational Dead-ends: If an employee leaves, the department cannot easily track who made specific promises to students or employees.
Cybersecurity: If an account is compromised, transparency allows for immediate identification of the breached credentials.
Institutional trust: “Anonymous responses” can feel automated, impersonal or evasive. The "Sent by" tag signals to the recipient that qualified professional(s) have personally reviewed their case.

5. Summary of Institutional Benefits (Sender Shown)

Transitioning to the transparent sender model provides three primary strategic advantages:

Enhanced Accountability: Individual attribution promotes a higher standard of accountability and professionalism, because senders are cognizant that their contributions are visible and part of the permanent record.
Operational Agility: Real-time visibility allows colleagues within a department to immediately identify who is handling a specific case or student issue. This reduces internal "status checks" and allows for a more fluid hand-off of tasks.
Strengthened User Trust: By replacing an opaque departmental alias with a human "anchor," the College fosters a culture of transparency. Users feel more valued when they can see that real people are managing their inquiry, which significantly improves the perceived quality of service.

(DRAFT) Request for Exception to Sender Transparency

TO: [Name of Vice President or C-Level Executive]

FROM: [Name of Department Head/Director], [Department Name]

DATE: [Current Date]

SUBJECT: Formal Appeal for "Hidden Sender" Configuration on Account: [Email Address]

I. Purpose of Request

This memorandum serves as a formal request to adopt/maintain the "Show this address only" setting for the departmental email account listed above, thereby exempting it from the College’s standard Transparent Sender Model.

II. Mission-Alignment Justification

Please provide a detailed explanation of how hiding the individual sender’s identity fulfills the College or Departmental mission more effectively than the standard practice of transparency.

[Department to insert text here. Focus on specific workflows, safety concerns, or unique operational requirements that necessitate anonymity over accountability.]

III. Addressing Institutional Risk

The College’s default model is designed to mitigate risks associated with cybersecurity, legal discovery (OPRA), and institutional trust. Please explain why the need for an opaque communication style in this specific instance outweighs the following institutional values:

Accountability & Audit Trail: How will the department ensure individual accountability for correspondence if the "Sent by" tag is removed?
Operational Continuity: How will the department prevent "operational dead-ends" or duplicated efforts when multiple staff members are using the same account?
User Trust: How will the department mitigate the potential for users to perceive anonymous responses as automated, impersonal, or evasive?

[Department to insert text here. Focus on specific workflows or unique departmental practices that mitigate risk.]

IV. Proposed Duration and Review

Exceptions are not necessarily permanent and are subject to periodic review.

Requested Duration: [e.g., 6 months, 1 academic year]
Suggested Review Date: [Date]

V. Executive Review & Authorization

VP / C-Level Recommendation: [ ] Supported — Forward to the President for final determination. [ ] Not Supported — Use the institutional Transparent Sender Model.

Signature: __________________________ Date: __________

Presidential Determination: [ ] Exception Granted [ ] Exception Denied