Ward Jarman Testimony and Commentary

Protect the Basic Rights of All Individuals


    On April 11, 2001, I testified before the Education and Cultural Affairs
Committee of the Maine State Legislature concerning An Act to Authorize
Release of Certain Information Pertaining to the Certification,
Authorization and Approval of Educational Personnel (LD 1765). When I
finished delivering my testimony against publicizing any information gained
from the fingerprinting and background checks of school personnel,
Chairperson Mitchell implied that my testimony was not pertinent to, nor did
it address, the issue of confidentially or the dissemination of information.
My testimony was not the only testimony that was likewise dismissed. I
revised my original testimony and sent copies of that revision to all
members of the Education and Cultural Affairs Committee because I want to
make clear that I testified to defeat LD 1765. My reasons to call for the
defeat of LD 1765 could not be separated from the original legislation
(mandated fingerprinting and background checks of school personnel) that
created the need for the committee to then write 1765. The logic that seems
to have been dismissed by Chairwoman Mitchell was this:


    Defeat LD 1765 because it wants to disseminate information collected
under another piece of legislation which violates the rights of innocent
individuals.


    For this argument to stand one must then demonstrate that the law which
gathered the information abused the rights of innocent individuals. This I
attempted to do as best I could because it would follow that information
gained through the violation of an individualšs rights cannot be used by
government for any reason, certainly never given out publicly.


    I believe that the argument to defeat LD 1765 because it would publicize
information that was collected through the violation of the rights of
innocent individuals is a strong argument.  Others may disagree. I have no
problems with disagreement, but to say that such an argument is not relevant
to the issue is incorrect.


    Since I have revised my testimony given at a public hearing I have
submitted my complete testimony with revisions in hope
that you will publish the revision. In this fashion the revision remains
public and not buried in governmental paper work. My opposition is as
follows:
 

Defeat LD 1765


    As a teacher I must seek to know what is true. What is correct. Today,
you government officials want to review the matter of revealing the
particulars of the fingerprinting and background checks of teachers thus far
fed into your legislated action. The number 1324 has already been leaked to
the public. This number has a negative tag of "individuals with criminal
convictions", but the statutory requirements of the law, in the eyes of the
public, pertains not to "criminal convictions" but to "convictions for abuse
of a minor in the last five years," or at the Commissioner's discretionary
power for "convictions older than the last five years for abuse of a child."
The Commissioner, in his memo to superintendents, principals, and school
board chairs states, "The sole intent of this legislation is to protect
children."

    Since public statements have been made which lead the general public to
conclude that this law pertains to "convictions for abuse of a minor," the
public who has read the number 1324 may easily conclude that 1,324 teachers
have been convicted of "abuse of a minor." If it is not true that all
criminal convictions were "abuse to a minor", then we, who are teaching
professionals have been slandered in the court of public opinion. If all
criminal convictions are not abuse to a minor, then those who are supposed
to protect the innocent have mislead and propagated a falsehood that injures
many, many innocent teachers. Our criminal justice system, our police, our
governmental officials, our educational commissioner and his agents were
supposed to keep confidential the information gained from the fingerprinting
and background checks. As we can easily see, we cannot trust our government
or its agencies to keep sensitive information from leaking out. Many who are
not guilty of "abuse of a minor" must trust an untrustworthy system to keep
forever in confidence their personal information.

    Now I am confronted with the next awful retort possibly flung by a
government official, perhaps my representative, or any other proponent of
this incorrect law.

    "Mr. Jarman," they may say, "if you are seeking the truth, then have the
officials reveal the particulars of that ambiguous and mud slinging number
1324. The particulars of that number, Mr. Jarman, will reveal the truth you
say you are seeking."

    Detailing the particulars of that number is a false issue. The truth of
this matter lies not in the number, but in the situation.

    This is the situation. I stand before you today as a teacher of 22
years. I say to you, clearly, "I have never been convicted of abusing a
minor."

    You, my government officials, the embodiment of our legal system, say to
me, "Prove it! Prove it by getting fingerprinted by our police and our
police will investigate you."

    Here is the problem. In this problem is the crux of the matter, the
truth of the situation you created with your incorrect law. When the United
States was being formed, our forefathers had to develop our legal system.
Our forefathers consciously chose a legal system in which the accused is
considered innocent and must be proven guilty. Another aspect that grew out
of this basic premise of our legal system is the 5th amendment that assures
the individual the right not to testify against him or herself. Likewise the
individual has the right not to be tortured, etc. Additionally, individuals
must be Mirandized. Searches of persons and property have all kinds of
parameters place upon them. Mirandizing and limiting the procedure of
searching persons and property exist to insure the rights of individuals and
to protect the innocent. All of these particulars derive their being from
the basic premise of our government, our laws, which state that an
individual is innocent until proven guilty.

    Individuals are presumed innocent. I am innocent of the crime of abuse
to a minor. I have never committed a crime of abuse to a minor. There is no
probable cause to search my person or my property to collect evidence
against me. Under the spirit of our legal system, I am not required to prove
my innocence. The government is required to prove my guilt. Additionally,
this law, which forces my compliance to be fingerprinted by denying me the
ability to pursue employment in my chosen profession, denies me my right to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If I choose my right not to
prove my innocence, the government has taken away my chosen means to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This forced fingerprinting is an
abhorrence to spirit our forefathers, not just those who penned the words,
but those who died bringing this country into being, a country based on the
rights of individuals, a country born from the outright rebellion against
oppressive government, and as such, a country founded on the law that the
individual is considered innocent until proven guilty and that the basic
rights of individuals shall not be usurped by the government.

    Will the actual number of individuals with convictions for the
specifically indicated charge change the abusive spirit of this law? No.
Once you, protectors of the state, have broken our confidence by leaking
confidential information, should you continue to betray our trust by giving
out more details concerning that information deemed confidential? What kind
of logic would that be?

    The truth that is before us does not reside in the number leaked to the
press. The truth which is clearly visible is that our current governmental
officials will force, for whatever reason, many, many innocent individuals
to prove their innocence or loose their right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness through employment in their chosen profession. Good
teachers, good citizens, must choose between their right not to prove their
innocence or their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Clearly the number 1324 and any of its particulars are red herrings, smoke
and mirrors, distractions from the real issue. I strongly urge you to defeat
1765 as it would allow the dissemination of information gathered under an
ethically repulsive law which usurps the rights of innocent individuals. The
legislation mandating the  fingerprinting and background checks of school
personnel must be repealed and all files collected under its abusive reign
destroyed. 

Ward Jarman

Unity, ME