• Syndicate

  

  x

  

  

  
  or, subscribe to us by e-mail!

• Recently Written

  • Criminals at the court
  • Faked references for a fee
  • The case of Amy Bishop
  • To credit check or not to credit check?
  • Fitting Your Background Check to Your Hiring Strategy
  • How do they steal? Let me count the ways
  • Trouble Ahead
  • E-RACE and You
  • Preventing workplace violence
  • Check me out

• Categories

  • Background checks
  • Credit checks
  • Criminal checks
  • Employment screening
  • FCRA
  • Government
  • Law enforcement
  • Legal
  • MVRs
  • Privacy
  • Tenant screening
  • True crime
  • Uncategorized

• Archives

  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007

• Links

  • BRB Public Records Portal
  • National Association of Professional Background Screeners
  • National Sex Offender Registry
  • Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC)
  • OIG Excluded Persons
  • SentryLink - Provides criminal background checks and other employment screening services.
  • Sentrylink @ NAPBS
  • The other SentryLink - No relation to us.

• Admin

  • Login
  • Wordpress
  • XHTML

  Search

In Farmington, New Mexico, the job description for a Court Services Coordinator (similar to a probation officer) lists the following. “Certified substance abuse counselor or five (5) years experience in the criminal justice system required.” That usually means “working for a criminal justice agency” not “as a criminal being processed by the system.”

But, it turned out that Court Services Coordinator Christos Derizotis had lots of experience in the criminal justice system that the city didn’t know about. According to an article in DUI Attorney headlined “City official fired over New Mexico DWI arrest,” it was only after Derizotis had been arrested for DUI that they discovered that had six prior DUI charges and:

“officials learned Derizotis had been convicted of battery, false imprisonment, criminal damage and impersonating a police officer in the past.”

But wait, as the late-night pitchmen say, there’s more. According to the Farmington Daily Times, Derizotis was also “sentenced to six years in the Federal correctional Institution La Tuna in Anthony, Texas, in 1985 for bank larceny.” He was paroled in 1989, but nine months later he was arrested again for violating the terms of his parole.

How did this happen? The Farmington paper suggests that it might have been a bit of favoritism. Derizotis is the son of a former Magistrate Judge.

They may be right, but I think the real explanation is much simpler. The city never ran a criminal background check on him. They only ran those on people applying for positions that handled money and information technology jobs.

According to the Farmington Daily Times, city human resources director, Donna Brooks said, “This will prompt us to do (criminal background checks) on probation type of people.” It should.

Doing regular criminal background checks on people who will occupy positions of trust is a way to head off embarrassment and make an informed decision about the candidate. If I were Ms. Brooks, I’d be thinking about where else the city ought to be conducting background checks.

The American entrepreneur and department store executive, John Wannamaker, once said that “Half of all the money I spend on advertising is wasted. I just don’t know which half.”

Sounds to me like what you face with resumes these days. You know there may be falsehoods mixed in amongst the truth. But it’s hard to tell which is which.

It just got harder. In an article advising job seekers on truthful strategies for dealing with problem references and resume gaps, CNN discusses web sites that will fake your references for a price. They identify one such site, CareerExcuse.com.

This goes way beyond the buddy who will pretend to be your old boss. This is serious stuff.

This service will let an applicant decide on what field of employment, dates, and salary they want. They will provide a fake paycheck stub and a reference letter.

If a candidate wonders about whether they can get caught using the service and perhaps fired, CareerExcuse has a simple answer: “We can’t guarantee that you wont [sic] and not liable if you do. If you get the job in the first place.we did our part. It’s up to you to act responsible after you get the job.” Grammatical mistakes left in.

So what can you do? The best defense is a rigorous, disciplined hiring process.

Review all documents carefully. Use criminal checks as part of the process. Cross-check information.

Interview thoroughly and carefully. Ask questions about job history in different ways and at different points in the interview.

Have qualified people assess competency in specific areas. Use tests if appropriate.

Follow up on all references. Check more than just the most recent references. Talk to real people.

John Phillips is one of the country’s leading experts on employment law. The good news for us is that he writes an excellent blog, The Word on Employment Law. There, he puts what he knows into terms that non-lawyer HR people and real-life managers can understand and use.

His February 16, 2010 post, “Alabama Shooting and Background Checks,” is a good example of his work. Biology professor, Amy Bishop, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, is facing murder charges after killing three staff members and injuring three others on February 12, 2010. Here are two key paragraphs from Phillips’ post.

My guess is that Dr. Bishop wasn’t subjected to any background check. She was, after all, a college professor. Maybe, the two shady events in her past wouldn’t have shown up in a background check, depending on its thoroughness. But they may have.

Some employers that use drug tests and background checks do so selectively. Front-line employees are always tested. At various levels up the chain, other employees are tested. But a line is usually drawn somewhere. Are employers really going to ask an executive to submit to a drug test or background check? Often, they do not.

Phillips’ observation and my experience match up. Companies will do a background check on people who work the loading dock or the reception desk. But, they’re less likely to do a check on applicants for key executive positions. That’s just dumb.

Executives can be criminals, too. Executives can fudge the information on their resumes. Executives can get into financial trouble that makes them more likely to be tempted to steal or to rig the numbers that determine their compensation. And if a bad-apple executive slips through the net, you’re putting him or her in a position where they can do lots of damage.

The reason we do criminal background checks and pre-employment credit checks isn’t because we think any one person may cause problems. It’s because we know human nature. Some people will lie and cheat and steal. Others won’t. But you can’t tell by looking which is which.

That’s why it’s a good idea to use background checks as part of your hiring process. And that’s why it’s a good idea to do it for everyone, even the people who may sit in the executive suite.

The popular KnowHR blog recently ran a post that generated lots of comment from HR types. The title was A Master’s Class in Hiring a Person With Credit Wrecked By Bad Health and Being Laid Off.

The blogger shared the story of a person who’d been out of work for some time because of medical problems. Because he was out of work and had medical bills, his credit suffered. The blogger asked how other HR people would handle the use of a credit report in hiring or not hiring the person.

The discussion devolved into a question of whether or not you should use a credit check if a position is not, as once commenter put it, “cash sensitive.” But this isn’t an either/or kind of question. The real question is: “How do you use a pre-employment credit check?”

A credit check gives you straight credit information, of course. But it also gives you some data on addresses and employment. You can check that data against resume or application entries.

No matter how you use it, a credit check should never make your hiring decision for you. Use it as a starting point for questions. Use it as one of several sources of information.

In the case of the person the blogger wrote about, the claim was that the sole cause of the poor credit was the combination of job loss/medical expenses. If that’s true, then the current credit situation might not be a barrier to hiring.

But you have to keep asking questions. It seemed like the job was a technical job, such as in an IT department. That probably wouldn’t be “cash sensitive.” But it might be “confidential or cash records sensitive.”

Note that I used the words “might” and “could” in the above paragraphs. That’s because each situation is different. Your pre-employment credit check and background check are tools you can use to generate questions that help you make the right decision in each, individual case.

The Macon Telegraph recently ran a story with this provocative headline: “Problem principals: Bibb school leaders had problems at previous jobs.” Here’s the lead.

In the past 18 months, four Bibb County principals were investigated for allegations ranging from choking a student and mismanaging federal money to testing blunders and having an affair with a subordinate.

Three of the principals had repeated problems in previous jobs, and the other one was the subject of several complaints before he was placed on paid leave and then resigned, school records show.

Those “problems in previous jobs” are the things that background checks are supposed to catch. They did. Once you catch something, you need to take some action.

A criminal background check does you no good if you don’t use what you find. Usually, that means you use it as a starting point for investigation.

Investigation is the key. After investigating one of the principals who had “issues” in a previous job, Bibb County hired him anyway. Here’s how Sylvia McGee, Bibb County’s deputy superintendent put it: “We want strong principals who are going to be what we consider to be change agents.”

The principal in question had improved the test scores at the school where he was. This particular hire turned out to be controversial. But McGee is sure that the district gets it right most of the time.

Even if they do, this story raises a bigger question for Bibb County and for you. What are your overall hiring criteria? What is it you’re looking for? What are you willing to sacrifice or overlook to get it?

The way you use your background checks and pre-employment credit checks should help you meet your goals. They can help you ask the questions that help you make an informed and conscious hiring decision.

But the information you get on those checks won’t make the decision for you. And they can’t guarantee that every decision will turn out the way you want.

Theft you will always have with you. The fact is that people steal. They will steal from you. They will steal from you no matter what you do.

You can throw up your hands and let the thieves have their way. Or do something about it.

Start by being aware of some of the many ways that employees steal. It comes to you courtesy of one of the standard professional references: The Small Business Fraud Manual from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. Here are just a few ways that employees can get into your pocket.

They steal cash. They may take money right out of the till or the petty cash fund.

They steal by setting up phony vendors and paying them. This is a bit more sophisticated, but very common. Putting in for more pay than they deserve is a variation of this one.

They steal inventory or supplies. Sometimes this is low-cost items, like office supplies. Sometimes it’s merchandise or machines worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

They steal by using equipment for their personal needs. This can be anything from hand tools or the office copier to giant construction equipment and sophisticated computers.

What can you do? Start with good hiring.

Use criminal background checks and pre-employment credit checks to help you spot potential trouble. Be sure to check references.

Set up policies and procedures that make it hard to steal or misuse equipment and that make it easy to catch when it happens. Your accountant can offer guidance on good fraud prevention practice.

Enforce the policies you have. Just having a policy or procedure in the manual isn’t enough. Use it. Simple checklists can help you stay focused and thorough.

Make it a policy to run background checks and credit checks on people in positions of trust, especially those who handle money or authorize expenditures. Don’t just do this when they’re hired. Update your checks on a regular basis. If you spot signs of trouble, dig a little deeper.

There will always be thieves and good people who steal “just this once.” But you can use good business practice and fraud prevention tools to keep your business as safe and profitable as possible.

I love old black-and-white Western movies. One standard scene involved two trains speeding through the country toward each other. You knew that if something didn’t happen, there’d be a big, nasty wreck.

That’s the scene in business today. Except, instead of two trains we’ve got screening practices and legislative efforts to make sure that everyone gets a fair shot at a job speeding toward each other.

Over the last decade, more and more companies have started using criminal background checks and pre-employment credit screening. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But many of the employers who’ve climbed on the background screening train simply haven’t’ followed the rules. They’re not giving the notice and getting the permission that laws require. They’re using background screening as a quick way to turn a big pile of applicants into a smaller pile, without tying decisions to legitimate business purpose.

Those kinds of slipshod practice result in some people being denied employment unfairly. As more and more of them complain, the legislators are taking note. Workforce Management describes it this way:

“Congress is considering a bill that would prevent employers from using credit reports in their hiring or promotion decisions. In June, Hawaii joined Washington state in limiting the use of credit checks in pre-employment screening; bans or restrictions also are under consideration in Michigan, Ohio, Connecticut, Missouri, New York and Texas. A California bill that restricts credit checks in pre-employment screening cleared the state Legislature in 2008 and 2009, only to be vetoed twice by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.”

You can’t do much about what the legislators do. But you can protect yourself by using screening tools the right way.

Follow the law. Make sure you know what you can and can’t do.

Be consistent. Use good business process to do things the same way every time. Make hiring decisions on clear, written criteria that you apply in every case.

Make sure that you tie your decisions to legitimate business purpose.

You probably won’t be able to stop the train wreck. But, by doing things right, you can keep from getting hurt when it happens.

Recently, HR Morning carried an article titled: “EEOC warns about background checks.” It’s about the E-RACE program. Here’s a core paragraph.

“The EEOC program designed to combat discriminatory practices tied to background checks is called E-RACE (Eradicating Racism And Colorism from Employment). It started when the agency noted, in the last few years, a steep climb in complaints from applicants who said they were unfairly excluded from competing for a job because of information that showed up on a background check.”

The key word here is “unfairly.” If you’re using background checks the right way you should be in compliance with the program.

Here are some guidelines. Note that I’m not a lawyer. I don’t even play one on TV. But I have been around the hiring process for a while and I know that the key thing isn’t whether you use background checks, but how you use them.

Check everyone. If you’re just checking people of a certain race or gender or age or from only one part of town, it’s like hanging an “I’m discriminating” sign around your neck.

If you’re going to refuse to hire an otherwise-qualified person because of their criminal record, make sure the record is relevant to the job. Consider the nature of the offense and when it occurred.

If there’s a record, but it doesn’t point to a specific problem on the job, it still may point to character issues. Just remember that the background check alone won’t be enough.

Use what you’ve found as the starting point for questions. Combine it with what you discover on your pre-employment credit check to make those questions sharper.

Remember: background checks and pre-employment credit reports can be great tools to make your hiring more effective. But you’ve got to use them to make good and fair business judgments.

Labor attorney Todd Wozniak, writing in QSR (Quick Serve Restaurant) lays out a program that will help you reduce the threat of workplace violence, beginning with conducting background checks on all applicants. His article is titled “Violence in the Workplace.”

Wozniak starts by sharing a few stunning statistics. Did you know that assaults and violent acts account for 14 percent of workplace deaths? Did you know that workplace violence costs employers $36 billion a year?

Did you know that almost three quarters of employers have no formal program that addresses workplace violence? What about your company?

There are lots of reasons you should address the threat of workplace violence. A safe workplace is more productive. Morale is higher. And then, there’s the law.

As Wozniak points out OSHA requires an employer to provide a workplace that’s “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.” Here’s how he suggests you proceed.

Do a diligent job of hiring, including background checks on applicants.
Create a threat management team.
Assess vulnerabilities on a regular basis.
Adopt violence prevention policies.
Conduct regular training.
Fire respectfully.
Ban weapons.

None of these things is rocket science. None of them cost a lot. The trick is to cover your employment situation from beginning to end, to have clear policies and procedures, and to make sure that you follow them diligently and consistently.

Many of the stories I see about background checks have a familiar theme. “Background checks are a good idea, but I don’t want you to check on me.” That’s why a story out of Rapid City, South Dakota stands out.

The headline reads: “Ice cream vendors embrace background checks.” Here’s the lead.

Details of Rapid City’s proposed background-check requirement for ice cream vendors are still being hashed out, but truck operators say they won’t have a problem with the new rule if it is implemented.

The first question is: “Why do background checks on ice cream vendors?” They may not seem like a potential threat, but think back to the last time you were at a public park in the summer.

Remember what happens when the ice cream truck comes around. Kids beg parents for ice cream. Moms and dads hand over money and send their little darlings off to the truck.

You hardly ever see a parent who walks to the ice cream truck with their child. And that means that a vendor with evil intent toward a child may have the opportunity to snatch one up.

So Rapid City is drafting an ordinance to do a criminal background check on ice cream vendors. And the vendors, unlike some folks, say that’s just fine with them.

In fact, Keith Storm, one of the vendors only really has one concern. He hopes the process won’t be a burden, since he already went through a background check to sell ice cream around schools.

So here’s a hearty “Bravo!” for Rapid City’s ice cream vendors and a hope that the city doesn’t squander that feeling of good citizenship with silly regulations and process and costs.

A story in the Muskogee Phoenix headlined: “Wanted: Students, not felons” describes how some colleges are now including criminal background checks in their application process. Here’s an excerpt.

Along with their grades and residence status, high school seniors face another important question on their college applications: ‘Have you ever been convicted of a felony?’ And many colleges, including the University of Oklahoma and nursing programs at Connors State College and Northeastern State University, back that question up with criminal background checks.

In other words, what happens is that the college asks an applicant if he or she has a felony conviction. If the answer is “No,” they proceed with the admissions process. If they answer “Yes,” the college runs a background check.

This strikes me as dangerous. In the interests of streamlining the process for people with no criminal record, they put those same people at risk.

Think about it. In common law as practiced in most of the US, a felony is a crime that carries a possible sentence of a year or more in prison. We’re talking things like battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug sales, embezzlement, grand theft, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud.

It seems to me that if a man or woman has been convicted of a crime like that, they’re more likely to lie than a person without a criminal record. That’s why I’d like to see criminal background checks as part of every college admissions process.

My guess is that would discourage some felons from applying at all. It would identify others so an informed decision can be made about whether they pose a threat to other students or not.

Cade Roberts who plans to attend Oklahoma would agree. He asks: “What if you get a roommate with a background of gang activity or if you get a felon you don’t know about.”

I say, “Check ‘em all.”

“Oh, the irony of the background check!” was the headline on a story in the Pocono Record in February. One of their readers offered the following.

A few months ago, I applied for a job at the new distribution center in Gouldsboro. I had the interview, got hired, passed the urine test, then they do a background check which they find a misdemeanor theft charge from two years ago, which was over some coins. I was accused of stealing, but since I was there, I could not prove I did not. Anyway, they told me they could not hire me.

Let’s look at this because it illustrates some issues about hiring that are important. Wording is a good place to begin.

The person refers to “misdemeanor theft charge from two years ago, which was over some coins.” Clearly he’s trying to put things in the best light. In the ad business those would be called “weasel words.”

It may have been a misdemeanor, but it was probably a conviction, not just a charge. Certain criminal databases, like SentryLink, that businesses use for background checks don’t note arrests or charges, only convictions. That’s how we interpret the Constitution’s principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

We don’t know how many coins were involved and we don’t know if they were currency or collectables. What we do know is that stealing was involved and the fact that it was two years ago is irrelevant.

If I’m the hiring manager, here’s how my reasoning would go. “We’re considering this guy for a job at a distribution center where he’ll have access to lots of things he can steal. He’s stolen before. I think we’ll hire someone else.”

Everybody tries to portray themselves in the best possible way. But some people step over the line and use “weasel words” to misrepresent their situation. A charge and a conviction, for example, are two very different things. That’s why we have background checks.

To background check, or not, is online love’s latest question, at least according to the Salt Lake Tribune. The course of true love has never run smooth, but who ever thought it would come to this?

There have been plenty of stories lately about men and women using background check services like SentryLink to check out prospective dates. But now the battle has moved to the online dating services. According to the Tribune story:

The contentious issue of the moment - pitting one of the three biggest companies, True.com, against its major rivals - is whether online dating services can enhance their clients’ safety by conducting criminal background screenings of would-be daters. Last month, New Jersey became the first state to enact a law requiring the sites to disclose whether they perform background checks. True.com - the only large online dating service that already does such screenings - was elated by its successful lobbying and hopes other states will follow suit.

There are two things going on here. True.com is seeking a marketing edge and preying on the fears of people who might be considering using an online service to help them find a date or a mate.

Many people use online services like Match.com or Eharmony.com because they’ve exhausted the usual sources of dates. If you can’t find a date among the people at work, at church, at school or at a volunteer activity, what do you do?

There seem to be three choices. You can assume that dating is not in your future and hope somebody interesting shows up at one of the places where you hang out. You can hit the singles bars. Or you can try one of the online services.

Since you’ll be in contact with people you don’t know, both the bars and the net offer the possibility that you’ll run into a predator or a nut case. Your best defense is good judgment and paying attention to warning signs.

If a background check will make you feel more secure, use a service like SentryLink that lets you check national criminal records for a modest fee. I’d be much more comfortable with that than will leaving the checking in the hands of some dating service.

Several newspapers recently carried the story of an outside firm doing background checks for the Nevada Department of Public safety lost the personal data of over one hundred applicants. It seems that an employee of the firm had the data on a thumb drive and lost the device.

“Thumb drive” is the name given to little memory devices that hold a lot of data and plug into a USB port on your computer. They’re sometimes called “keychain drives” or “flash drives.” Thumb drives are about the size of your index finger and can hold up to 16 gigabytes of data.

Thumb drives have become popular devices for transporting data or transferring them from one computer to another. A worker from the Nevada company there probably put sensitive files on the thumb drive and slipped it into a pocket or purse.

The very convenience that lets you slip a thumb drive into your pocket makes it a security risk. That’s because it can easily slip out without you noticing.

You owe it to applicants and employees to keep their information safe. Most of the time that will mean keeping it on a secure computer with limited access. If you’re using a thumb drive, or any portable media, to store sensitive information, make sure the data is encrypted.

If you’re using a thumb drive to transport data the encryption rule holds but you also need to keep the device secure. There are three common ways that users do this.

Some users carry their thumb drive on a key chain or on a cord around their neck. Others have a specific place in their briefcase for all portable media including thumb drives and CDs.

Then there are the people who slip the thumb drive into a closable pocket attached to a file folder. They figure it’s harder to lose a file folder than a tiny drive, plus they can put notes on and in the file folder.

If you have sensitive information about employees or applicants, it’s your job to keep the information safe. If you’re storing that information on any computer or storage drive, you need to keep that safe, too.

An article in the Colorado Springs Gazette outlines how deferred sentences can let someone convicted of a crime pass your background check. Here’s what happened in Colorado.

Robert Lawrence Psaty worked as a mental health clinician at the Colorado Mental Health Institute. A waiter noticed him slip a pill into his companion’s drink while having dinner. The waiter, smart fellow, took the drink from the table and called police.

Psaty was arrested. It turns out that he’s been in trouble before, in 1994 and again in 2002. In both cases he received a “deferred sentence.” Here’s what that means according to the Colorado Judicial Branch:

An arrangement in which a defendant who pleads guilty is placed on probation for up to two years, usually with conditions. If the defendant successfully completes probation, the guilty plea is withdrawn and the case is dismissed. If the defendant fails probation, he or she may be sentenced based upon the guilty plea.

Here’s what that means for Psaty, for the Colorado Department of Human Services who ran the background check on him, and for you. It’s like that conviction never even happened.

The court decided, in 1994 and in 2002 that Mr. Psaty had met the conditions established by the court at sentencing. The cases were then dismissed. When the Department of Human Services ran their background check, there were no convictions on the record.

This just emphasizes the point that while a background check should be part of your hiring process, it shouldn’t be the only part. Your application should ask about criminal activity. Check with your attorney to see how you should ask about deferred sentences. You should check references. You should run a pre-employment credit check.

No system is perfect, but a good process, diligently followed will help you catch most criminal situations. That same process and diligence will also help keep you safe from wrongful hiring lawsuits.

Seems like lately we’ve seen story after story about how one church or another didn’t do background checks that should have been done. So it was great to see the story in Christianity Today about how one church uses background checks and other tactics to preserve the safety of the children in its care.

The article is titled “Playing It Safe.” It’s about how they handle background checks and other security at Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois.

You should read this piece whether you’re a church or a business or a day care center or any other kind of organization looking for best practices on security. I’m just going to hit some highlights.

The story quotes David Staal who is director of the church’s Promisland Program for children. Here’s a quote I loved. “Safety is one area you can’t ever compromise on or the whole ministry is at risk. You need to bat a thousand every time.”

That’s a good attitude for security anywhere. Here are some of the things Staal does that you can emulate.

The children’s program is in a secure area of the church. Access is limited. The church maintains a “No access” list for people not allowed in, and enforce it with a check-in procedure.

They also have a thorough application process for volunteers who want to work with children. It’s a good model for any application process. Here’s Staal’s description of it.

“The application process deters a lot of people. Because we ask a lot of personal questions, a child predator would have to lie on the application, hope that their background check doesn’t show anything, hope their references check out perfectly, and then face two interviewers who have the gift of discernment. Does this process guarantee we’ll never recruit a bad worker? Nothing is 100 percent. But the steps we use weed out the opportunists.”

Whether you’re a church or not, take a few moments to read the full article. You’ll find tips on the application process, ideas about physical security and much more.

The headline pretty much said it all: “CMS: ‘We blew it’ on staff memo.” CMS? That’s Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. Here’s the story of what happened.

The school system has been doing criminal background checks on new hires for years. When a teacher was caught shooting heroin on school property and when it turned out that same teacher had a history of drug abuse, the school system decided that they ought to check out current employees, too.

So far, so good. The idea was to take steps so that students and teachers in the system were kept safe. Background checks for current employees seem to becoming more common. Teachers even supported the idea, according to the Charlotte Observer.

So a staffer put together a memo and that’s where the problem started. It went out to 18,000 workers and informed them that unless they authorized the district to investigate their finances, background, character and “mode of living” they could be fired. They had a couple of days to sign the form.

Even though the additional background checks had been discussed, workers simply weren’t ready for anything like this. It arrived out of the blue. It was a shock.

The tone was heavy-handed. Comply by Friday, or else!

Just to add insult to injury, the memo didn’t represent the policy accurately. The district wanted to do criminal checks to look for people who might be a danger to students and staff. The memo described a credit check and even used wording taken from the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

To his credit, Superintendent of Schools, Frank Gorman, responded both quickly and contritely. He apologized for the notice and poor communication. He clarified what the district was after and promised that there would be more early discussion on the next version of the new policy.

Lesson: Even if adding additional background checks for current employees is a good idea, and even if they support the idea in the abstract, it’s still a loaded emotional issue. Act accordingly.

Lesson: Memos and other communication on loaded emotional issues should not be left to anonymous staff. Senior people should review them for both accuracy and tone.

Lesson: If you mess up, apologize. It’s the only way you can start making things better.

Yvonne Mintz, managing editor of The Facts, a newspaper in Brazoria Country, Texas wrote an insightful editorial titled: “BISD made right decision [budgeting money for quality background checks] for our children.” Here’s the core of her argument.

Sad as it is for a school district to have to pay big bucks for advanced background checks on potential and current employees, as well as volunteers, there is no question about the need for a thorough system for vetting people who work with our children — or our money. That’s why Brazosport ISD’s school board made the right decision in voting to spend $14,620 a year on quality background checks that go far beyond what the district has in place now. The number of teachers accused of abusing students and staff members caught with their hands in the taxpayer till or worse is high all over the place, it seems. Not all accused offenders have prior history, but schools who aren’t doing everything they can to weed out applicants who do simply are inviting trouble.

It’s good to see someone who gets it. You don’t do background checks and expect to catch everyone who might later do something evil or predatory. You do them because it’s smart.

As Damon Runyon, author of Guys and Dolls, put it: “The race may not always be to the swift, nor victory to the strong, but that’s the way you bet.”

In the case of background checks, you “bet” that most of the people who will prey on children in the future have probably been caught at it in the past. You do a criminal background check to catch the ones you can. It’s not perfect, but it sure beats the alternative.

The alternative is hoping that you won’t hire someone who will later turn out to be a criminal or a predator. That’s a really dumb choice.

WBNS-TV10 in Central Ohio reports on a really horrific story. It involves an unusual twist on the issue of criminal background checks as part of hiring. Here’s how it goes.

Karen Carter applied for and got a job as business office manager at a nursing home called the Sanctuary at Tuttle Crossing in Central Ohio. According to the station, “Carter’s state criminal records background check was forged.” She also lied on her application and said she had no criminal record.

In fact, Ms Carter has quite a record. She’s on probation for theft. She was already set to appear in court to answer charges “including forgery, theft, identity theft and falsification.” And now there’s a warrant for her arrest on charges of stealing thousands of dollars from patients at the nursing home where she worked.

I’d call her a pro, except she keeps getting caught. But Ms Carter certainly is a predator.

You may be thinking, “Wow. We’d never have caught her either. She had a forged background check.” Think again.

A forged background check means that someone at the nursing home and involved in the hiring process was either lazy, extremely gullible, or asleep at the switch. If the home relied on a forged document, either Ms. Carter brought it with her or she selected the person or company who provided it.

My guess is that she went from home to home with her forged document, hoping to find someone dumb enough or lazy enough or dishonest enough to hire her. Evidently she did. Maybe they figured they’d save twenty bucks by just accepting the document she brought with her.

It’s not rocket science to avoid hiring someone like Karen Carter. Do your own background check using a reputable firm like SentryLink. That would have done the trick.

Under the headline, “Officials mandate screening staffers“, Florida Today reports the following.

“Effective today, no employee will be hired by the city without undergoing a criminal background check.” Here’s the background.

On January 15, the City Council of West Melbourne voted to hire Doug Wyckoff to a three-year contract as city attorney for more than $100,000 per year, even though he had not cleared a criminal background check. The majority of the Council probably figured that Wyckoff was an honest looking fellow and there was no need to wait.

Well, you know that if we’re writing about this, that all did not turn out well. When the background check results finally came in, they showed that several different women he’s had relationships with have taken out temporary restraining orders on Mr. Wyckoff. Ooops.

What was the city’s reaction? Well, first, they went ahead and approved an amended contract for Mr. Wyckoff. He says he’s glad to have support of the majority of the Council and he hopes that pesky issue of the restraining orders will die down since it’s “not in the best interests of the city.” Not to mention Mr. Wyckoff’s best interests.

Then the Council passed a resolution to make any hiring for any position in the city contingent on passing a background check. There’s no policy for that so one will have to be drafted. Perhaps the new city attorney can help.

I don’t get it. Didn’t the city ask Mr. Wyckoff if he had a record? If they did ask him, did he lie?

The lesson for all of us is the same one we keep pounding on here. Just because someone doesn’t look like what you think a criminal should look like doesn’t mean they’re OK. Check out everyone you hire. Even attorneys.