by Nick Fishman

We just received word that the state of Vermont has increased access fees in each of the state’s courts for those who search public records from $10.00 to $30.00 per search.  This should be concern to anyone who conducts criminal background checks in the state of Vermont.  We should all be so lucky as to be able to triple our rates overnight.

by Nick Fishman

This E-Verify update comes us from our good friends at Greenberg Traurig. Evidently, the federal government is getting ready to mandate the use of E-Verify for all federal contractors.  You might recall that E-Verify (formerly known as the “Basic Pilot Program” is designed to allow employers to confirm employment eligibility and right to work status.  See excerpt from their alert below:

Major changes are on the way for federal contractors, who will soon be required to use
the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) E-Verify system to electronically verify
the employment eligibility of many of their employees. Although Congress is in the
process of evaluating the integrity and future of the E-Verify Program as it considers
reauthorizing the program, the Administration pushed on with its enforcement agenda.

On Friday, June 6, President Bush issued an executive order that will require all federal
contractors to use the E-Verify employment verification system once they enter into a
contract with an Executive Department or Agency. Also, on June 9, DHS Secretary
Chertoff announced that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had completed
review of a rule-making that will amend the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) to
impose the same requirement on all federal contractors. While it is not unusual for
federal contractors to be held to different or higher standards than other U.S.
employers, this is a major development and will have significant effects on federal
contractors. This GT Alert discusses some of the issues raised by the executive order. A
future Alert will discuss the new rule once it is published.

Read the full article here:

GT Alert on E-Verify

by Nick Fishman

I’m sorry, but this is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard (okay, I hear many stupid things every day especially from me, but this is up there).  The state of Virginia has a law that mandates that day camps perform background checks on their employees.  Most of us would agree that this is a good law.  It allows camps to weed out those who have been convicted of crimes that would disqualify applicants from employment, especially Sex Offenders.

Evidently, that law (nor any similar laws) does not apply to overnight camps where it would seem there is even greater opportunity for predators.

See excerpt from the article Summer Camp Concerns below.  This should disgust any parent who entrusts their children to overnight camps.

A former boy scout leader, Rodney Almond, served time for sodomizing a 15-year old camper at a Surry county boy scout camp.  He also pleaded guilty to similar charges in Norfolk and Virginia Beach.  But if you think this can’t happen closer to home, think again.
The case shows a loophole in virginia’s requirements for camps. That’s because Virginia law does not require residential camps to run criminal background checks on employees.

Think someone ought to revisit this moronic loop hole?

by Jason Morris

I will not go into a rant about inadequate background checks in our schools, I just won’t.  This story speaks for itself!  Our kids in public schools are being protected by an inadequate, antiquated background screening process.  Most States require a fingerprint check at the State level and a FBI check at the National level, only if the candidate has lived outside that State in the past five years.

They say they don’t have the money, schools are underfunded.  How many kids have to get assaulted before they realize metal detectors are not the only way to protect students.  A thorough criminal check must be done at the county level.

Since schools are the theme of this posting, administrators should read my series; Employment Screening 101.  Schools are just as liable as corporations.  Standing behind the budgetary excuses and doing the minimum required by state law does not stop 15 year old girls from getting sexually abused.  Administrators can start looking forward to negligent hiring lawsuits in the same way Corporate America does; If you could have known, you should have known!

Local drama teacher charged with sexual abuse had sexual assault allegation again him in past

(WHAS11) - We have new information about a Bardstown High School drama teacher arrested along with his wife last week.

Police say Kevin Holladay had an inappropriate relationship with a female student and his wife Marta Holladay was charged with assaulting that student.

Now, we’ve uncovered new information about Kevin Holladay’s past.

We found some information Kevin Holladay probably didn’t want Bardstown schools to know about and because of the way the district currently does background checks it remained his secret. Until we told his former boss about it on Wednesday.

The drama coach, who goes by the name “Campfire Kev”, had his own summer camp experience 11 years ago, one that could have landed him in prison for 20 years.

In July 1997, Kevin Holladay was charged with sexual assault against a child.

According to reports, Holladay was a counselor at a summer camp in Wisconsin, when he allegedly fondled a 13-year-old girl who fell asleep while watching a movie with him.

More

by Nick Fishman

This just in from our friends at Seyfarth Shaw: New York Employers Face Penalties if The Fail To Secure Employee Social Security Numbers. This law new law affects New York employers who collect Social Security Numbers on their job applicants and employees; in other words, every New York employer. Employers obviously need this information for a variety of reasons including its importance when conducting background checks. This article references a rather shocking stat: “In a 2006 survey conducted by the Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC), a not-for-profit organization which provides information and support to identity theft victims, 12% of those surveyed reported that their personal information had been stolen at the workplace.”

We took this off the State of New York’s website:

Confidentiality of Social Security Numbers – General Business Law §399-DD
Places limits on the use and dissemination of Social Security Numbers (SSN) beginning January 1,
2008. The law prohibits the intentional communication of an individual’s SSN to the general public;
restricts businesses’ ability to print a SSN on mailings or on any card or tag required to access
products, services or benefits; prohibits businesses from requiring an individual to transmit his or her
unencrypted SSN over the Internet; and requires businesses possessing SSN to implement safeguards
and limit unnecessary employee access to the data.

According to Seyfarth Shaw, the New York Social Security New York Protection Law (NY Gen. Bus. § 399-dd) prohibits the following:

• Intentionally communicating an employee’s social security number to “the general public or otherwise make [it] available to the general public”;
• Printing an employee’s social security number on any card or tag required to access services or benefits provided by the employer;
• Requiring an employee to transmit his or her social security number over the Internet unless “the connection is secure or the social security account number is encrypted”;
• Requiring an employee to use his or her social security number to access an Internet web site unless “a password or unique personal identification number or other authentication device is also required to access the Internet website”;
• Printing an employee’s social security number on any materials to be mailed unless state or federal law requires that this information be on the document.

Seyfarth offers the following compliance tips:

• Have a written privacy policy (that includes disposal procedures that are consistent with accepted industry practice and satisfy legal requirements);
• Lock up and limit access to employee personal information;
• Conduct background checks on employees who will have access to personal information;
• Limit retention of personal information to only that which is essential;
• Train employees on privacy and document disposal policies;
• Encourage employees to report any possible security breaches;
• Avoid using or disclosing an employee’s social security number for any purpose other than that required by law or legitimate and necessary business purpose; and
• Take proper security precautions when terminating employees who have access to personal information (e.g., changing computer access codes).

Read the full article here . . .

I definitely can’t and won’t argue that this is a bad law. In fact, it’s probably good for both employers to have some direction on how to comply and for consumers to have this protection. However, those performing background checks in New York have had a lot on their plate lately with the increase in the OCA fee.

by Nick Fishman

employeescreenIQ has learned that effective May 1, 2008 the New York Office of Court Administration (OCA) quietly increased the fee for checking criminal records to $55.00; a $3.00 increase from the original price established in 2003.

For those who regularly conduct background checks in this area, the already hefty price continues to mount.

by Natalie Beck

Yet another shining example of someone working with children that should not have been. This just goes to show that school officials should make sure that the proper screening procedures are followed before a person is placed in a position of authority at a school. It’s one thing for the employee/volunteer to have a criminal past, but quite another when this person is contributing to the delinquency of those he is supposed to be supervising.

Click here for the story

by Nick Fishman

We posted a legislative update on employeescreen University last week, detailing a ruling by the State of Oklahoma Supreme Court which would remove identifiers such as dates of birth off conviction records. This is being done to protect the privacy of those who have records, however an unintended consequence of this ruling will leave those who conduct background checks in the state of Oklahoma with no way to confirm that the criminal records they have found actually belong to their candidates. This measure would effectively kill the ability of employers (and anyone else who searches public records) to conduct background checks.

Interested in getting involved? The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) has developed an advocacy letter for its members to send to the court detailing our concerns. employeescreenIQ as well as hundreds of other Consumer Reporting Agencies have already sent this letter.

NAPBS was kind enough to let me adapt their letter for any employer that was interested in participating as well. I have attached that letter below. All you have to do is insert your name and company name where appropriate, put it in an envelope with a stamp and mail it to the address included on the letter.

Not sure you want to waste the effort? Trust me, I’m the eternal pessimist when it comes to stuff like this. But it actually works. NAPBS alone has positively influenced decisions such as these in states throughout the country. This does work and you can help with very little effort.

State of Oklahoma Advocacy Letter

by Jason Morris

This morning I came across another article regarding new public access rules developed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.  employeescreenIQ and many members of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) are working hard to reverse this decision before June when it takes effect.  Background check results would be severely impacted if this policy stands.

Court’s new record policy would affect background screening business

By M. Scott Carter

Transcript Staff Writer

OKLAHOMA CITY — New public access rules developed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court would make it more difficult for companies that do prehiring background checks, officials with those companies said this week.

by Nick Fishman

It would seem that the Florida Department of Children & Families has a nightmare on their hands. They hired a spokesman for the organization that was recently arrested on Child Pornography charges, as documented by the Orlando Sentinal in their article DCF reviewing background check policy after spokesman’s arrest.

The state agency said that a background check was conducted and did not reveal conviction records from the state of Texas which focused on writing bad checks. They said if they had known about these records, it might have affected their decision to hire this individual. My guess is that the state didn’t conduct a thorough check, however it could have been much worse. Based on this report, it doesn’t seem to indicate that this individual had prior records related to sex crimes or child pornography.

The importance of conducting a county criminal record search in each county where the applicant has lived, worked or attended school cannot be understated. The article doesn’t indicate that these offenses occurred in counties where the individual resided, but I think it’s a safe assumption. If he didn’t the state would be claiming the they conducted a thorough check and wouldn’t be reevaluating their procedures.