Instructor Lost Job!

[sensei8]

Check this...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10025/1030989-100.stm?cmpid=latest.xml

I agree with the decision made by Northside Leadership Conference, especially when the director said...."But the plain and simple truth is, he does not have the necessary clearances presently."

Your thoughts?

[Jeffrey]

I so sympathize with Mr. Owens trying to turn his life around you do need to have proper clearances. These are in place to protect everyone involved including the instructor.

[tallgeese]

I think it should matter how long ago the charges occured. Last week is a world different than a possession charge 10 years ago in college. It should be considered. The actaul drug charge should matter as well. Again, a bit of weed during the college years is different than a felony sized meth production charge as well.

That being said, the program operates on grant money that is overseen by a authoritatve body. There are rules for such things, I'm sure. The power probably does rest with them.

[DWx]

IDK but it seems pretty inconceivable that they didn't check him out first anyway especially as he was teaching kids. Standard procedure over here is that you get CRB checked before anything like that.

[joesteph]

I understand what Tallgeese is saying about what the drug was, how long ago it occurred . . .

This man is 48, and he spent 18 months in prison starting in 2006, when he was likely 45. He can't say he was young and did something foolish. It had to have been a relatively serious drug charge, and he hasn't been out of prison very long. I don't think conviction never came up, in that application forms routinely include the question, "Were you ever convicted . . . ?" I lean towards that he would have simply checked off "No" and didn't expect it to be discovered. It could be that he's out on parole and that's how his past was revealed, but the article doesn't go into what caused the news reporter to contact those in charge of the program.

An acquaintance of mine was convicted of shoplifting more than a decade ago and was sentenced to perform community service, so she's got a record, and it's interfered with her being hired for certain jobs.

[sensei8]

I hear what's being said here in that his arrest/conviction was many years in the past from his youth and that he's a changed man from it; it was a mistake. Mistakes that can haunt you for the rest of ones life. When a person has done everything right in their life since the mistake, that should count for something, but, then there for all to see is a record and that's what many focus on. Not the good that's resulted from a lesson learnt, but, the focus bears down on the bad in which one can never avoid under a microscope.

Working with children NEEDS the type of actions as demonstrated in the article at hand, no matter how unfair it might be in this case, but, children are involved and protecting children IS paramount!

Edited January 29, 2010 by sensei8

[DWx]

Young and foolish? From what Joesteph highlighted, I think not. Drug charges at 45, its not just some college kid messing around. I'm assuming that since he's well past his teens/twenties he would have a good idea what he was doing. And if he spent 18 months in prison starting in 2006, he would have finished his sentence 3 years ago ish. So thats not that long. The children he was teaching were part of a community development program so presumably these kids may have been susceptible to stuff like drugs and street violence, as a parent would you want your kid to be taught and influenced by such a person. Whether or not he was a changed man, something as recent as that should have been made aware of. Then it would be up t those running the program whether he was suitable or not.

[sensei8]

Yeah, I erred badly on my very last post on this thread. I should've re-read the article before I spoke foolishly and rely on my memory...mistake on my part...SORRY!

He was 45 and that's not a mistake of youth.

It was in 2006 and that wasn't from a past of many years. He might still be on parole.

A changed man? That's not for me to decide...I gave him the benefit of the doubt...dumb of me.

I still echo what I said before...

Working with children NEEDS the type of actions as demonstrated in the article at hand, no matter how unfair it might be in this case, but, children are involved and protecting children IS paramount!

[tallgeese]

Yeah, if it's that recent I'd rule it a no go if I were on that board as well. 06 to 10 isn't enough on something like that. Not whe working with kids.