Sexual offender on our field trip!!

[Peety]

...... The police chief will not allow this officer to do background checks on prospective chaperones. We are not even allowed to show a list of chaperones to the officer for him to look over and make any recommendations.......

WHY ? Whom are they protecting (shielding)? Certainly not the children !!!!

You sound like a responsible person, does this all sound kosher to you? If you were in charge, would your morals allow you to condone this proceedural stone-walling?

What would the local newspaper, town council or the PTA do with this information? You are (probably) not the only person in town with morals, who's protective of, and concerned for, the children of the community. Be sure of your facts before you proceed. Don't fight the battle alone. Let others in on the dirty little secrets. It would be worth (to me) loosing my job to live up to my morals, provided it is known ~ that is how it came down, and why.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

WHY ? Whom are they protecting (shielding)? Certainly not the children !!!!

You sound like a responsible person, does this all sound kosher to you? If you were in charge, would your morals allow you to condone this proceedural stone-walling?

What would the local newspaper, town council or the PTA do with this information? You are (probably) not the only person in town with morals, who's protective of, and concerned for, the children of the community. Be sure of your facts before you proceed. Don't fight the battle alone. Let others in on the dirty little secrets. It would be worth (to me) loosing my job to live up to my morals, provided it is known ~ that is how it came down, and why.

Apparently you did not see the post directly above yours.

 

[CdwJava]

WHY ? Whom are they protecting (shielding)? Certainly not the children !!!!

Well, not knowing the laws in MN regarding background checks, I can only assume that MN - like CA - generally prohibits "background checks" for employment or volunteer purposes. The school district or the law enforcement agency could check the Sex Offender registration records that are accessable to the general public, but the law enforcement agency could not reveal any information found on Criminal History Offender records without violating state or federal laws.

In CA there are generally two ways to do this.

(1) The volunteers or the school district can pay for the volunteer to agree to have his prints taken and submitted for a check of state and FBI criminal offender records. If these records reveal any prohibited offense (one that would prevent them from lawfully performing the activity with the children) then it would come back with a 'hit'. However, being a registered sex offender is not an offense and this would not likely come back on the district's response. However, the district would be able to review the public sex offender registration database at a local law enforcement agency.

(2) The volunteer could submit to a private background check through a private agency. This may include public records - including sex offender files. However, these checks can be incomplete as some counties do not have all their court records on computers so many records might not be accessable.

In CA local law enforcement cannot just do willy-nilly "background checks" on school volunteers. My guess it that they cannot do so in MN either. There are a number of federal and state laws in place that restrict access to, and the use of, information obtained through NCIC (and for CA, CLETS).

So, I doubt anyone was trying to protect or hide anything ... the chief was more than likely simply trying to comply with the law.

On a side note - In the school district where my children attend school, the principal at the elementary school has a simple process ... she asks me (off duty) or my wife if I (we) would let my children go with a particular individual. If the answer is, "No" ... well ... then we usually have to find another chaperone.

Carl

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

(QUOTE)On a side note - In the school district where my children attend school, the principal at the elementary school has a simple process ... she asks me (off duty) or my wife if I (we) would let my children go with a particular individual. If the answer is, "No" ... well ... then we usually have to find another chaperone.(QUOTE)


That is just great Carl. It is NOT your job (if you are a police officer, as you state), to even imply something like this.

 

[minnesotakent]

When the concern is the safety of children, what Carl is doing is commendable. It may not be legal, but it is the right thing to do.

 

[krispenstpeter]

That is just great Carl. It is NOT your job (if you are a police officer, as you state), to even imply something like this.

Give me a break Par-a-idiot. As Carl stated, he is asked his opinion as a parent, NOT a police officer.

And I have found myself in the same situation and have given advice to my girl's principle, as a PARENT, not a former security advisor to NATO.

as far as cops go on this board, Carl is the only one with any common sense. Learn to deal with it.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

My point, is that within a school setting, or any setting, is that the school board needs to take care of background checks....ect....

Of course I agree that felons, and especially sexual offenders should not be on field trips with children.....but I do not feel that just because someone has a job that enables them to know each and every single neighbor or parent of a students background should be giving a "Thumbs up", or a "Thumbs down" to a parents involvement in a school activity.

Krisp, I don't care if you agree, I don't care if you don't, the childish name calling also does not matter to me, if it makes you happy.......OK.

 

[djohnson]

paradise,

I guess as a parent I don't know why you would disagree with someone using their knowledges to help protect our children. I think it is wonderful and more people should do it. Does this 'keep quiet' policy of yours just go for police officers? or as a parent if I know something on someone that is going with your child should I speak up? There is no difference. As someone's tag line here says "knowledge is power, use it" and we should.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

I AM A CHILD ADVOCATE to an extreme. I have children, They are my and my husbands as well as extended families priority, I am very involved., so do not preach to a good mother. That was not the point of my comment, and I won't further respond to this thread.

My opinion is my opinion, and clearly you are making it look as if I agree that a convicted sexual offender should be on a kid's field trip, and that is not the case.

Don't you think everyone in this country can look up "Megan's Law"? My point is obviously not being expressed correctly, and that is ok.

I am not a sexual offender, nor have I ever been arrested, but I certainly do not want my privicy invaded either.

 

[djohnson]

Well for me, if it means the protection of just one child then invade my privacy all you want. They are both rights and to me it is a matter of priorities. A childs right to safety should always come first.

 

[mcedronron]

as far as I am concern, the moment someone becomes a convicted criminal, hir/her expectations of privacy should be gone.

don't do it and you won't have to worry about someone looking it up... public's right to know.

 

[Alexander1492]

School adopted a required background check...

One thing I fear about this policy is that parents with non-child and/or non-sexual criminal background (robberies, fraud, drug charges, or even sexual crimes such as a controversial date-rape situation) would be denied participation on their own child's field trip, and I would find this disgusting if such parents were denied...

 

[djohnson]

One thing I fear about this policy is that parents with non-child and/or non-sexual criminal background (robberies, fraud, drug charges, or even sexual crimes such as a controversial date-rape situation) would be denied participation on their own child's field trip, and I would find this disgusting if such parents were denied...

I don't know about you, but as a parent I don't want anyone on a field trip with my child that has any kind of sexual crimes, contraversial or not. As for the others I think it should depend on the nature and the length since it happened. If it was a drug charge 2 months ago, I don't want that person there. To big of a chance that he is still on drugs, might have some one him, could cause accidents etc... Now if it was a drug charge 5 years ago, ok. I think it needs to be known and individual cases be made. However, I would rather be safe than sorry when it comes to the health and well being of my child. Any good parent that had that history should understand.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I would find this disgusting if such parents were denied...

No matter how disgusting you might find it, this is a matter of policy, NOT law. A school is well within their rights to limit participation on school-sponsored extra-cirricular activities including, requiring background checks for ALL participants and limiting those participants to non-criminal persons.

There is no legal protection for parents to participate.

 

[minnesotakent]

It is right privilege, not a right.

Parents do not have a "right" to participate in a field trip. It is a privilege. The liability of taking someone on a field trip with a criminal past is scary. Even if their criminal history was a non-violent crime like shoplifting, they should not go. Would you want that person supervising students in a gift shop?

What should happen is that once we receive the chaperone applications we will give them to the district human resources person who will do the background checks. We will get the list back and be told whether the person was approved or not approved. The only person who will know why is the district human resources person.

Also, the new overnight trip chaperone form states that a criminal background check will be done on all prospective chaperones. This statement alone should deter people with a criminal history.