JimF-LowBari Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, MikeD said: Forget the recent past stuff in the news articles for a moment. Look at how the vetting process might work moving forward. Corps A hires: XX staff who have contact with MM. XX support people, such as admin, cooks, prop staff, drivers, other volunteers. The corps perform all of the new background reporting requirements, which need to have zero tolerance and/or wiggle room: Criminal Licenses Other avenues of investigation (such as online searches and references) No issues are discovered What are you thinking that corps A will do regarding DCI? Send DCI information at the individual person level? Sign off that everyone complies with the DCI requirements? Sending DCI information on individuals certainly raises the risk of PII being released/misused, so just keeping an "Excel spreadsheet" may not be the best idea if you want DCI to maintain personal information at the individual level. Last time I had a full security check the ####### Chinese got a hold of it. SSN, birthdates, family relationships, marriage info, places of residence since ..., etc, etc for myself and my immediat family. God knows what info my references gave that got grabbed. Identity thiefs ### dream. And this was hacked from Office of Personal Management. Depends what a corps wants if i would agree. Edited December 26, 2018 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 2 hours ago, MikeD said: Sending DCI information on individuals certainly raises the risk of PII being released/misused, Good outline all good points. I would go a step further and have the new hires provide a notirized document that there is nothing in the pipeline like known pending accusations, suspended certifications and the like. Also that they commit to notification if anything pops up, like domenstic violence, DUI or other related activity. DCI is then provided with a check list that thier vetting recommendations are met and the notrized docments are filed with the corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted December 27, 2018 Share Posted December 27, 2018 On 12/23/2018 at 10:38 PM, MikeD said: Unless the person who suffered the abuse presses charges, there is little that can be done in the criminal courts against the perp. That is what happened in, the Cosby case. The one and only woman still within the statute of limitations came forward (at nearly the last minute) and criminal charges against Cosby proceeded. The judge permitted some of the woman from earlier incidents to testify to show a pattern of behavior, but none of those events were charged. He was convicted on the only incident available. Ditto Hopkins, He is "only" charged with the two women from the recent past. Hopefully others will be permitted to testify as happened with Cosby, but those are the two that the prosecutor needs to prove to the jury. In the case of teachers, outside of the criminal justice system schools can go through licence removals and professionals sanctions against teachers, but that is separate from the criminal side, which has nothing to do with the school district. The new laws like here in NJ then permit...in fact mandate...that 1) a job applicant must agree to allow the new district to go back 20 years (in NJ) to research any issues from the past and 2) schools must disclose such information when asked. Drum corps checking a new hire have no access to school systems, so I'm not sure how something like that might work, especially if the applicant was not convicted of a crime and did not lose a license. By "issues from the past" do they mean specifically inappropriate relations with students kinds of issues, or wider than that? Curious as to how sweeping they're trying to make this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted December 27, 2018 Share Posted December 27, 2018 8 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said: Last time I had a full security check the ####### Chinese got a hold of it. Ahhh, Mister Jim! Perhaps you'd like to invest in a corporation in Beijing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 27, 2018 Share Posted December 27, 2018 1 hour ago, BigW said: By "issues from the past" do they mean specifically inappropriate relations with students kinds of issues, or wider than that? Curious as to how sweeping they're trying to make this. safety is safety. hit a kid? fired for horrible disposition i.e. yelling, screaming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted December 27, 2018 Share Posted December 27, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: safety is safety. hit a kid? fired for horrible disposition i.e. yelling, screaming? True. Wondering more if "Didn't get along with the Principal/Principal didn't like the individual" is covered within it. IOW, if you leave a school for those kinds of things- is it also then an effective death sentence to one's career? Hitting/threatening a kid, and what was mentioned is one thing and should get you out of the profession, but I'm more concerned with those other kinds of issues also being involved. Well known athletic director in a local school district whaled kids left and right for years (even a parent who questioned him got clocked in the face) until he beat the tar out of a kid whose Dad was a Lawyer- then he was forcibly retired (finally). That too, has been an issue overlooked, I have no problem canning those people too Jeff. More thinking... is just not being a good fit/not being a darling of the admins get you wiped out here too. My concern here is that any reason at all for leaving a school except just wanting to move or get more pay means you're finished. Edited December 27, 2018 by BigW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpbobcat Posted December 27, 2018 Share Posted December 27, 2018 15 hours ago, Bluzes said: Good outline all good points. I would go a step further and have the new hires provide a notirized document that there is nothing in the pipeline like known pending accusations, suspended certifications and the like. Also that they commit to notification if anything pops up, like domenstic violence, DUI or other related activity. DCI is then provided with a check list that thier vetting recommendations are met and the notrized docments are filed with the corps. Sorry,but this won't work without some type of outside verification. All a notary does is confirm that the person signing the document provided verification they were the signator and signed it in front of them. A notary doesn't check anything regarding the accuracy of the information in the document. So a person lies on the check list and signs it. Then what ? How would a corps know,unless something comes to light after the fact. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted December 27, 2018 Share Posted December 27, 2018 4 hours ago, rpbobcat said: Sorry,but this won't work without some type of outside verification. All a notary does is confirm that the person signing the document provided verification they were the signator and signed it in front of them. A notary doesn't check anything regarding the accuracy of the information in the document. So a person lies on the check list and signs it. Then what ? How would a corps know,unless something comes to light after the fact. I know that they don't investigate it standardizes the process across the board. No confusion if trust is breached and retributions are necessary. The person does not have the I wasn't told this or that in the interview excuse. It also provides a comfort level to dci that everyone knows the expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpbobcat Posted December 27, 2018 Share Posted December 27, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Bluzes said: I know that they don't investigate it standardizes the process across the board. No confusion if trust is breached and retributions are necessary. The person does not have the I wasn't told this or that in the interview excuse. It also provides a comfort level to dci that everyone knows the expectations. The only thing Notarizing a document would do is prevent a person trying to say his signature on the document he submitted to a corps,wasn't his. Edited December 27, 2018 by rpbobcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted December 27, 2018 Share Posted December 27, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Bluzes said: I know that they don't investigate it standardizes the process across the board. No confusion if trust is breached and retributions are necessary. The person does not have the I wasn't told this or that in the interview excuse. It also provides a comfort level to dci that everyone knows the expectations. IIRC (sister is/was a notary) the person could get a minor charge leveled of making a false statement if they sign that they are clean. Of course if the main charge is abuse then false statement penalty isn’t worth mentioning just remembered last thing I had notarized was signing an insurance claim. Basically saying if I lied my butt was grass and Prudential was the lawmower Edited December 27, 2018 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts