SOCKO, BOFFO INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING: WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
I have an acquaintance. Let's call him "Todd". Todd rec'd a death threat back when he was 23. It had to do with a woman and a triangle, the usual. He reported it to the police. Still, he decided to carry a small, portable weapon in his car. He was stopped for a traffic violation and the small, portable weapon was discovered. Inconveniently, it was a sawed-off shotgun. Todd did just under four calendar years in a Federal Prison. Happily, he studied Animal Husbandry while there and later earned an advanced degree. He's an expert in Otters and Ferretts. His consulting company's consumers are State Gov'ts.
He married when he was 33 and has two kids in High School. I think Todd's 57. He rec'vs public funds. His kids don't know he's a convicted felon. They were born more than a decade after the offense.
I have a good friend. Let's call him "Harry". Harry had a bad hard drug habit when he was about 19. But he had a way to pay for it. He had a gift for organization and he became a dispatcher for Mexican weed "Trunk Runners" (a little fabric softener and you're on your way!). A couple of the runners were caught and worked a wire on Harry. Four and a half calendar in a Federal Prison. Harry studied and worked in some kind of medical lab in the Prison. He became a type of Certified Lab Tech when he got out. He is the lab manager for a very large governmental unit here in the Midwest. He is probably 60. he married late in life and has a beautiful, zany, sweet daughter, ten, and a son, 14, who's a serious basketball player. They don't know their Daddy's a convicted Felon. In fact Harry's afraid to apply for a pardon because his conviction might come up a Google search by one of his kids. They were born more than a decade after the offense.
Ok, I tell you that to ask you this: Todd gets lots of public funds. Harry works for a governmental entity. The public has, I guess, an interest in knowing whether these guys are trustworthy. At what point does the public's right to know trump the kids' right to maintain unquestioned love and admiration for their Daddy? Pretty much can't have both.
I don't know the answer. I think part of the path out of this Rubik's cube of a decision is to have a professional, mature, experienced and educated editor--separate and apart from the guys responsible for getting the story--making the decision. There's gotta be a reason why "reporter" and "editor" are two separate job description, right?
For me, if it's a close case, I'm resolving it in favor of the kids. But, as I often admit, I have never committed any journalism.
I kind of wonder whether the reporter who might get his big scoop about Todd or Harry would take a minute between high fives to think about children crying and family dynamics being inexorably altered. That would pretty much tamp down the "scoop" celebration for me.
posted by UMRBlog @ 15:05
67 comments
67 Comments:
What similarities do either of these "stories" short of all of them having children, have to Murhpy's situation?
The answer is none. Post 9-11 you need to know who has access and control of people's personal information. He's not studying the anal gland secretions of the ferret.
I can assure you neither Todd nor Harry is named "Murphy".
If you don't want to discuss my topic, I TYFCB anyhow.
Very good point made in an articulate way. I myself am like these guys and I also worry about my kids finding out, who were born almost 10 years after my conviction.
The thing is, everyone, please consider: if someone is incarcerated, does their time, doesn't break the law again (100%, absolute), after 10 years they deserve to be regular citizens again. The fact that we can't, results in an extremely limited environment for employment and the urge to commit another crime.
Someone who is under the age of 22-23 (when they offend), a first-time offender should be sent to a Reformatory (they're not nice places), given student loans for a degree or vocation, and be able to have his/her record sealed after 10 years of being a productive citizen without law violations.
None of the aformentioned should apply to murderers, rapists, child molesters or any kind of sexual offender.
I am admire the fact that UMR can come to a conclusion about this situation using common sense and not knee-jerk reactions.
Agree or disagree? Rant or rave at me: kittelian@gmail.com
I might agree to 15 - 20 years of unblemished conduct, but 10 is too few. I've been married ten years and have a ten year old. Marriage and birth were "yesterday".
Fred,
Let me say the same thing you said in a slightly different way: You are the ultimate decider of when a guy is rehabilitated and trustworthy, Not his wife, Not his close family, not his Creator.....You. And only you will decide how much good behavior for how long will be enough.
You got time for all that judging?
TYFCB
Umr
Are you suggesting a government entity should not do background checks if the candidate has children?
Certain types of jobs that give a person access to sensitive information should be off limits to people who have committed particular crimes. You, of all people, know that UMR.
If I had done what the person at the center of this did, I would not be able to do the job I have. I would not have been allowed to take the tests I took or attain the credentials I have. I would in effect be barred from practicing in either the field I studied or the field in which I actually work.
All of this would be because the system would not allow me to be trusted with information that is voluntarily given to me by clients. This person has access to sensitive information that is not voluntarily given to him. An incidence of embezzlement is very relevant to the job that he has.
He should have been vetted, he should not have been given the job and it is not okay to now say, "ooops, we'll try better next time".
The city has compulsory access to the public's information and their money, and they have crapped all over their obligation to protect the citizens they serve.
It is a shame that the man’s children have to hear about it, since it should never have come to this, but a murderer doesn’t get a pass because his children might be upset with him going to jail.
This man did not have a momentary lapse of judgment; he stole from his employer, premeditated and over a long period of time. This was not a “darkest hour” moment; this is not punching someone in the face because they insulted your family, injuring them and going to jail. Your examples do not hold.
SBA,
I can't tell whether you're talking about Todd or Harry so I'll add this. Harry deals with exceptionally sensitive medical information. Employers do consider folks to have been rehabilitated.
TYFCB
UMR,
Do Todd or Harry have access to Social Security numbers for the employees of these companies?
Do Todd or Harry have access to the very types of situations that had gotten them in trouble in the past?
Have Todd or Harry been involved in any recent activities that might bring thier credibility into question?
If an employee now or in the future is terminated due to an investigation performed by Todd or Harry is it not possible that Todd or Harry's background be brought into the proceedings for the purpose of a credibility challenge?
And a very interesting senario is: Todd or Harry are involved in this same termination process. Terminated employee immediately files a court injunction based on Todd and Harry's background and keep them from touching the very items necessary for thier day to day work until the court can investigate whether Todd or Harry have manipulated the things involved.
Just some questions.
Anon,
Your para's in reverse order.
Short answer: could happen. Public would likely never know about, protective orders tend to be sealed.
Possible. In Harry's case, it did happen once. ALJ considered the argument and rejected it, based upon the facts of the case and the service record compiled by Harry. Not really sure what this has to do with Harry's Crim history possibly being made public, but your hypo could happen.
Yeah, actually Todd got tied up in a terrible struggle with Greenpeace, but they never made his record public. This is an organization that blows up whaling ships but they had the decency not to harm a scientists kids. That's kinda interesting.
Todd, no. Harry, arguably. There are controlled substances in his lab. Again, I'm having a little difficulty seeing what that has to do with disclosure of his conviction in such a way as to nofify his children. One can argue he shouldn't have gotten his first, grunt, job there in the first place, but it's a little harder to argue for a big press rollout because he's around controlled substances.
Probably no as to both. I really don't know for sure about Harry, but probably no.
TYFCB
Did Todd or Harry disclose thier prior convictions and indiscretions to the current employers prior to thier hiring?
UMR,
Come on, you are better than that weak response.
You would be smarter to withhold comment regarding this situation if you refuse to discuss the situation directly.
Umr
Did Harry and Todd's employers know about their convictions when they were hired?
Of course the City didn't know about this guy's prior theft conviction. They would have never hired him to deal with such sensitive information had they known.
Our host is the City Attorney who is doing what he can to limit the city's liability for this huge screw up.
He is also aware that the taxpayer will never know if this man has mishandled our funds or information until they get an auditor in there to take a look at everything he has touched. I am sure our host is advising the mayor of that duty right now.
It is inevitable that the expense will be added to the Firefighter tab because our mayor will want to make sure the City has not been compromised.
We all need to expect the best from our city officials. They will want to do the right thing because of "the children".
UMR,
Well, if I am the potential employer, mate, whatever, then I am the sole "judge" and I haven't paralleled the offender's path for the 10-15-20 years and needn't had to. I am, afterall, the "judge" and rightfully so, since I am considering an applicant's besmirched past before allowing him intimate access to my world. I'm willing to forgive his past, but there has to be proof that those habits are long ago abandoned. It is not necessarily about his worthiness as a human, being, but his appropriateness for my needs. Ten years is not very long. Mere bankruptcy stays on your record that long.
Fred,
Impeccable reasoning for your employee. Harry's employer is a Gov't agency and the issue in my thread here is whether the PUBLIC now should know, at the expense of the children.
I think, at my own little private enterprise shop, my standards would be even higher. But that has little to do with the concept of outing an employee who has performed well over time.
TYFCB
SBA,
You are smarter than to balk at talking about an important principle (harming children with optional disclosures) just because you desire to talk about some specific, parochial interest. If the principle is not interesting to you, wait for another one.
I concede your point about gateway qualifications and eligibility for certain licensed or bonded professions. But then, that's a different topic, isn't it?
TYFCB. You are always welcome here.
The key is prior disclosure. I'll bet Todd's and Harry's employers kept a keen eye on them until they proved themselves reliable. In regard to the present case for the city that Umr is defending, that was not possible. They didn't know then and still don't.
Umr
Your comparison is not valid. The city, in this case, knew nothing of his past. Todd and Harry disclosed what they had done and let their employers decide whether or not it was worth the risk.
What if someone else, someone with more devious intentions, found out the information and decided they needed some compensation not to divulge the information? How do we know that didn't already happen?
This comment has been removed by the author.
1450
My Comparison? I didn't compare anything to anything.
Employers do what Employers do. I am attempting, without much notable success, to provoke a discussion of the ethics and morality of blowing up children's realities when you are NOT their daddy's employer.
As I said, if that topic is not interesting to you, I don't have a problem with that.
TYFCB
1336,
I'm raising a principle of Journalistic Ethics. Not defending any "case".
Try it this way. You're an 8-year-old and you think your Dad's a pretty neat guy. Because of some grownup issues, somebody had to tell you and all your classmates about an ugly chapter in his past. That's the cost. Identify the benefit.
TYFCB
Ok, SBA is right. You would be smarter to withhold comment regarding this situation if you refuse to discuss the situation directly.
Try it this way. The neat Dad and his employer could have avoided trying to place the blame on someone else because the 8 year old and his classmates had to find out if the Dad would have been honest, and the city, I mean the employer, would have done its job of checking the neat Dad's prior employment.
So you can't picture yourself as that 8 year old. You just have her intellectual capacity.
The conduct I'm discussing is the disclosure to the public of the Dad's history. It's not any more complicated than that. It's a very simple principled discussion. It's not at all easy, but it's simple.
Obviously, it's still too complex for you.
TYFCB
smartass umr
What would have been a better way to go? What was the alternative path that a smart homeland security lawdog like yourself would have followed to ensure the public information was in safe hands.
And even though I'm not an attorney, I would have had the intellectual capacity to have done a background check on Todd, Harry and anyone else handling sensitive information post 9-11. How about you?
Umr
Why did you skip answering this question, twice? Did Harry and Todd's employers know about their convictions when they were hired?
Did Harry and Todd hide their past convictions from their employer?
Harry did not hide anything from his employer. His situation is unique in that he had been previously employed by this governmental entity in grunt capacity. He joined the USMC, took his discharge in the Great West and then returned to the midwest after he got out of prison/college. The leadership knew him and he put all his cards on the table.
Todd has never technically been a gov't employee. He got some jobs without disclosing his background. When he and State Gov'ts started applying jointly for grants, he was candid.
Again, this may have a great deal to do with whether a citizen should report these backgrounds to the EMPLOYER. I still don't see what it has to do with blasting it in the public media--oh, except it sells soap.
I'm sorry if it looked like I was ducking the Todd/Harry question. Been a little busy. Happy to engage on the journalistic principle and, if you think, H&T's disclosure or lack thereof is important to that topic, so be it.
The above was for 1733.
Just off the top of my Head:
Give it to the Police Chief;
If you don't like that one, Give it to the Adams County Sheriff;
If you don't like those; Give it to IEMA director or IEMA's chief counsel (who happens to be from Quincy);
If you don't like those, give it to the US Attorney;
If you don't like those, give it the Secret Service;
If you don't like those, give it to the Adams County State's Attorney;
If you don't like those give it to the Illinois Attorney General;
If you don't like those, give it to the Chief Administrator of INET;
If you don't like those, give it to the firm hired to do the Annual Audit;
If you don't like those, give it to the Director of ISP;
IF you don't like those, give it to Ray LaHood or Brother Ed or anybody else you think is incorruptible.
If it's terminal, the kids never have to know. If it's survivable, the kids never have to know.
I think I could come up with at least 20 more good alternatives, but you either get the idea or you don't want to get it.
TYFCB
1628,
I am not attempting to limit squat. I am trying to promote some Big Boy discussion on why this information had to made public instead of simply presented to any responsible security/law enforcement official.
The topic interests me. If it doesn't interest you...great. But skip the mind-reading night club act.
TYFCB
umr 723
How many of these folks have you contacted? Not sure many of them read QuincyNews.org. You may not agree it's a news story, but it is. It is no one's fault but Murhpy's that he is in this situation. He is responsible for his kids knowing what he did. I didn't see the same outrage from you when the QHW, almost a year after the fact, printed the pictures and bios of the three women involved in the firegate 6 fiasco. Where were you sticking up for the children involved then?
Now list the alternatives for that mess.
1605,
However rudely, you make an excellent point.
Anyone hired for a governmental position of trust since about Columbus Day of '01 should have been subject to a biometric background check and access to sensitive sites should be based on biometric identifiers. If you checked, I think you'd find about every downstate Home Rule City is doing a fine job of that.
But it's not cheap and there's literally no grant money for it so gov'ts don't run around backgrounding people already in place.
So the remedy for that kind of Human Error is blasting the news over the airwaves or cyberwaves, so the kiddies can hear it? Nah, I think, if you have the info, it's dropping a dime. Same result, less collateral damage.
TYFCB with some serious, if just slightly off-topic, thoughts.
1938,
If you have a logical argument to make about why "disclosure to proper authorites" doesn't accomplish the same thing as "News Story" make it. What you're saying now is simply "It is because I say it is," which always a horseshit argument.
This is not a thread about any local case. I can assure you that both of my exemplars live far from here.
People under the gun do this all the time. Some or all of a group of employees who find themselves in a crack "Go to the Press". They spin their story. The countervailing facts come out. The press gets tired of being used and the profiles follow. As they say in the Crack gangs, "doncha put u bidness in da street."
People who try to litigate their own misconduct in the press are subjecting the children to what follows. There's no cure for engage mouth before brain.
Oh and yeah, I hate it for kids of parents who make those kind of foolish judgments, too, but there isn't journalistic principle to discuss there. Victims of their own parents' impulsiveness.
UMR(8:39)
Immediately after I posted I reread your original post and wasn't sure that my comment was topic accurate, but I didn't take the time to repost.
So, I guess this whole scenario and answer depends on whether we are talking about Todd and Harry or, as many here have surmised, Jim Murphy. As you described Todd and Harry's situations I would opt for "the past is the past" and the kids can know when they are older. It would seem to be self-serving for someone else to publicly reveal their pasts at this juncture. It does seem to be unfortunate timing on your part though, because it reeks of the Murphy situation.
If we are actually talking about Murphy then all bets are off if only because of the mistrust the Quincy officials have created with their constituents. Murphy appears to have done a pretty bad thing and got off relatively easily. Good for him and if we assume that his behavior to this point has been unblemished then it is unfortunate that his past has come back to haunt him now. (It is the holidays, you know.) Unfortunately, though, the City has been less than forthcoming and has forced outside entities to do their own investigating. This exposes any city employee to scrutiny and exposure. The city and the Whig didn't worry too much about the privacy of the Firegate 6 when they outed them and they didn't violate any laws. This is all a big, stupid mess and somebody better get their head out of their ass and I'm not ever a Quincy resident or taxpayer.
PS: I wish that this little box were larger, so I could more easily see if my comment was maintaining coherency. Or not.
Fred,
I'm actually working on the "Box" thang. Good point there.
The principle is the same no matter what the name of the employee is. If you can bring the situation to the attention of the responsible authorities (and I list a bunch of them, above) then where is the value in outing the otherwise compliant employee. Hell, if the press concludes the authorities are stonewalling, it could always run it's story later.
Only reasons to go public are grudge or commercial interest, because the public interest in having trustworthy employees can be served in a way that doesn't harm the children.
Reread my comment on miscreants litigatiing their grievances in the press and maybe you'll have a chance to reconsider alternative explanations for what you somehow believe in the cases from last year. One must always remember to be careful for what one asks for because one might get it.
TYFCB and, yes, you were coherent. Somewhat assumption-bound and/or full of misinformation, but coherent.
It may have been coherent, but damn, it has a lot of typos.
Also, one can only assume when the facts are covered up intentionally. I'm not alone in that regard and like I said my dog isn't even in this fight.
Would it be better if everyone in the neighborhood got a letter that explained what daddy did?
Better for whom?
TYFCB
Better for the kids.
2001
Best is employer handling it, up or down, privately. But neighborhood notice is probably better than "news story" for which no on seems to able to supply the journalistic imperative.
TYFCB--Don't forget to check your closet for 17-year-olds.
Yes, yes, yes! "Best" is the employer handling it, but in the case of Murphy the public has a right to know if the employer is handling it and when they so obviously believe that the employer isn't handling it then it hits the fan(blogs). Now, you contend that this post has nothing to do with Murphy and in the cases of Todd and Harry I have agreed that public flagellation would have been unnecessary and improper. However, in light of the quote from Mayor Spring on QuincyNews this morning the hole just gets deeper for Murphy and he's not even the one digging it. I know that you can't agree to that, but as I said previously this is a big, stupid mess that needn't have ever got this far; assumption bound and/or full of misinformation or not!
I used to hide on my girlfriend's roof when I was 17. Does that count?
Aw come on,quit trying to muddy the waters. Children and their "feelings" do not have a bearing on the facts! If the facts warrant dissmissal,then so be it!
Let's try to be good to each other for once.
Cerberux(
anon 1244,
The issue here is publication--outing if you will. Tragically, reading is a "gateway" skill.
TYFCB
When there are no lines of communication and zero trust , I think Bob did what any other journalist would do .
Frankly Stache should have killed this in the early stages while thinking about puppy dogs and children .
The right thing to do is do what Sparky did , and take it head on . Ensure public trust is part of the job .
Killing the messenger died with WJC , failing to adapt to new media is not the media's fault.
2201,
I think it's interesting that you don't even acknowledge the ethical dilemma, then argue "the Mayor made me do it..."
Address the issue by ignoring it.....brilliant.
TYFCB
If children was the ethics , then we would have no news ever. The fire bug who burned the apartments on State Street had a kid also .
The Firegate six had kids also . Just because mommy is getting some on down low , doesn't mean the Mayor and Team had paint that RED A on their heads .
What about child soldiers in the Congo ?
There are kids there , do not report .
You are either incredibly thick or emotionally involved in some way.
Look, it's a balancing test. It's always a balancing test. It tips the balancing test that this isn't "news" at all. It's "olds".
But you're not prepared to engage on the issue or you wouldn't suggest I had set up some kind of absolute rule. Again, reading is a "gateway" skill to most other learning. You appear to be safe from any new concepts invading your space.
TYFCB
Not thick , just logical . Would a person who was convicted of arson 10 years ago be able to be a fireman ?
I won't use the sex crimes plus day care topic because it has been played out .
I think since things have seen the light of day , the best possible move is to first stand by your man . Then bring in a third party to prove that your man is clean .
If he's clean , then it is a great lesson of rebirth for the children . If he's dirty then someone is stuck cleaning the turd from the punch bowl .
The do nothing and circle the wagons is not the answer . We all know what some SEX and emails bought us , why not use the same brush ?
I am sure Spizzo has some time and room in his checking account .
Also I know how to read very well . I may be one of the better read people in this one horse place we call a City .
Oh, I understand. It's kind of like digging through a guy's arrest record and mailing out the results to all his neighbors even though he was only charged with domestic violence and never convicted so the same fat ass can keep his ward seat then resign to take a do nothing job and the mayor can appoint someone else to fill the seat. Ever heard of such a thing as this happening?
What about the children?
http://www.whig.com/story/news/cil-theft
I heard you were taking applications for payroll clerk. This is so unfair to my children.
Here's an idea. Post your opinion and call everyone who disagrees with you thick and illiterate. Now go do your job and make sure Murphy hasn't stolen anyone's money.
Steve 0951,
Excellent! You have learned from your Anger Management Course. Displace it and take it out on somebody else instead of spousifying it.
Good luck getting figured out what your real name is and what Ward you actually live in.
TYFCB
1253,
I welcome reasoned disagreement and there has been some excellent examples of that in this thread.
This blog frequently mocks "It is because I say it is.." on almost any topic. Expect that to continue.
TYFCB
Welchert Story is the opposite of Todd and Harry. Todd and Harry were "Olds". Welchert, "News".
It seems to me your bulb doesn't have to burn very brightly to see that.
TYFCB
So, what's the time limit on new vs olds? Seriously, just make sure Murhpy hasn't stolen any more money beyond the time he's stolen doing QUSC work while being paid by the tax payers.
Furthermore, can how can you be sure the Murphmeister hasn't done anything illegal with the information he has access to? If he was in charge of your checkbook for the last 10 years and you found out this new information, would you go back and have a look see at where your money has gone? The same consideration should be given to our money. Do your job.
As an attorney, how long would you say Julie Irvine Welchert should wait to not reveal her now past convictions of theft and forgery when applying for the position of executive director for another not for profit?
1918,
As an ADHD sufferer, how long before you quit morphing the issue of the employees putative obligation to disclose with when the press should report old conduct, not concealed.
Keep at it, clarity may occur when the planets are aligned just right.
TYFCB
1704,
I really don't see in this thread where I vouched for anybody's conduct, except Harry's little daughter.
TYFCB
Anon 1701,
For one shining moment, you had the point. Your first sentence was almost there. A balance of the news value of something against the harm.
Then......slip, sliding away.
TYFCB
The ship on whether or not to report the past conviction has sailed. What to do now?
Spring is going to ignore it. I would think as city attorney you would want to make sure the publics information is secure and that no money is missing. I suspect we pay the city legal department to protect the mayor, not the taxpayers. You listed a number of options for notifying the proper authorities. Have you done that? Or is that not in your job description?
Rocket Scientist above,
I guess you do know that City Funds are audited annually.
TYFCB
UMRBrain Surgeon
That's not the kind of "audit" I'm talking about, but you already knew that didn't ya?
Post a Comment
<< Home