LETTER TO DECISION MAKERS

This letter has been sent to my representatives, Senator Paul Davis, Sr. and Representative Ruel Cross, to Governor King, Education Commissioner Albanese, MSAD 64 Superintendent Leonard Ney, and the Bangor Daily News. It appeared in the Bangor Daily News on Tuesday, Nov. 2.

Governor Angus S. King, Jr,
Education Commissioner J. Duke Albanese,
Senator Paul T. Davis, Sr,
Representative Ruel P. Cross

Dear Decision Maker:

As a member of the Board of Directors of MSAD 64 and a father, I have lain awake many times worrying about how we can protect our children from the various predators that infest society. As such, I applaud attempts by our state officials to ensure safety. Nevertheless, the new requirement for fingerprinting and background checks on teachers and a wide variety of other school personnel leaves me wondering what rationale and what supporting data went into the creation of this regulation. I assume there are supporting facts and figures somewhere, but nobody has been able to tell me what these figures are or where I can obtain them. And nobody has been able to explain to me the rationale of some of the provisions or outline the logistics of their administration. Perhaps you can help me. Certainly this information and this logical analysis must have been available to somebody while the merits of the various legislative actions were being discussed. So, can you tell me:

1. How many cases have there been of repeat offenders in the affected positions perpetrating abuses on our children? Statistics on first offenders are totally irrelevant; only previous offenders would be detected by background checks. I know of cases where first-time offenders have preyed upon our children, but they wouldn't have been caught by the new procedures. How many cases have there been nationwide, regionally, locally, and how do these numbers relate to the total numbers of abuse cases? Are they a substantial portion of the total abuse cases? A small portion? A minuscule portion? If no actual statistics are available, please remind me of relevant case histories from the public record.

2. What is the rationale behind requiring fingerprinting and doing background checks on people who have been employed continuously by the schools of Maine for a number of years? It strains my imagination past its limits (and I'm a published science fiction writer) to invent a believable scenario as to how anyone could have managed to be convicted of a serious crime while so employed -- without everyone knowing about it. By the same token, background checks upon recertification are even more difficult to justify except, perhaps, in cases where the individual has spent a substantial portion of the intervening time outside the employment of Maine schools.

3. On what basis do we require teachers and others to pay for the background checks themselves? A recent conference of school board members and superintendents from rural districts in this area addressed the issue of how we, as board members, could assist in achieving State education objectives, i.e., the Learning Results. The workshop group in which I took part listed the protecting and enhancing of teacher morale as one of the primary tasks we as board members can perform in achieving State goals. The background check and fingerprinting -- especially the requirement that the teachers pay for it themselves -- is going to make enhancing morale a very difficult task as we are already finding out. Most teachers have been fairly quiet about fingerprinting and background checks. Their reluctance to speak is understandable as there are never lacking those who find something sinister in protests against the invasion of individual rights, but the unhappiness is there as both public and private statements from teachers and their representatives show.

4. If the background checks are regarded as vital to the functioning of our educational system, isn't it likely that local authorities could do the job cheaper? I have heard support for this contention. What is the truth here?

5. Apparently college personnel, including student teachers, who come in contact with school children are exempt from the check as arere non-paid volunteers? If there is truly a legitimate reason for performing these extensive checks, shouldn't these others who contact our children be subjected to the investigations also?

6. Much has been made about the confidentiality of information gathered in these checks; it is to be retained by the Department of Education. But it seems that the information gathered would be the type that would be public under provisions 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 of the State Teacher Certification standards. "Certificates of dismissal, records of other disciplinary actions taken by a school board, transcripts of public hearings held by school boards, and court records and transcripts not subject to seal are public records."

7. Section 6.3.B of the same standards provides for a definitions of moral character used to determine eligibility for State Certification. This section addresses only events of the last five years while the new regulations seem to carry through for the lifetime of the individual, thereby repudiating the concept of rehabilitation -- the whole basis of our legal system. How are these conflicting statements reconciled?

8. The days immediately preceding the start of school in many districts -- and probably all rural districts -- in Maine are chaotic in the extreme. We are generally struggling frantically to fill last minute vacancies up until the day before school opens. Injecting the background check requirement into an already nearly impossible situation will create a logistical tangle unresolvable with the resources available to local districts. How is this problem to be addressed?

9. It was promised that the fingerprinting would be done on school premises to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the teachers. According to some officials with whom I have spoken, widespread exceptions to this promise are already developing. Administrative letter #12 from Commissioner Albanese to the superintendents says that the State Police will not do sites of less than 100 persons. What is the truth of the matter?

I was elected by the people of Bradford to help administer the school district of which our town is a part. One of my duties is to sit on the committee that handles contract negotiations with the teachers. We haven't much money to offer them; please give me something to offer them in its place -- at the very least a logical, defensible explanation for the actions of the State in imposing this measure. Please help me by providing the information I have requested so that I may perform properly the function for which I was elected.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Don D. Tarbet, PhD
Member, MSAD 64 Board of Directors
Bradford

• Fingerprinting homepage
• Summary
  
• Responses