[inkblot]

The Department of Health and Human Services "knew of the conviction, but was not troubled by it". Okay, what is wrong here?! A department head learns of it through a news release and then reverses the job offer. Isn't this an agency for the public's health and safety? What made them even consider the guy in the first place?!

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld...n/11138569.htm

Job offer to convicted killer rescinded

The Associated Press

LINCOLN, Neb. - The state of Nebraska made and then took back a job offer to a man convicted of murdering Dian Fossey, the American wildlife researcher whose work in Africa was the subject of the movie "Gorillas in the Mist."

The Health and Human Services System said Monday that Wayne Richard McGuire had been hired as program director of a mental-health office.

The offer was withdrawn after The Associated Press reported that McGuire was found guilty in absentia in the 1985 slaying of Fossey, who was hacked to death at a jungle camp in Rwanda.

McGuire, who denies involvement in Fossey's killing and recently worked for a mental-health agency in Oklahoma, said his conviction didn't come up in the interview process. He didn't immediately return a phone message left after the state withdrew its offer.

Earlier, HHS spokeswoman Kathie Osterman said the state agency knew of the conviction and was not troubled by it.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers said that when he called HHS Director Nancy Montanez about the AP story, she was unaware of McGuire's background.

"When she was made aware of that, she immediately directed that the offer be withdrawn," Chambers said.

HHS officials said they would issue a statement later.

[SweetCrusader]

Geeze!

Don't know what else to say!

[MacD]

yet another triumph of our impossibly beauracratic screwed up system......

[inkblot]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...round%20Checks

DSHS workers passed checks despite misconduct, convictions

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SPOKANE, Wash. -- More than 100 state employees in sensitive positions were allowed to remain on the job despite records of serious professional misconduct and crimes that included murder, statutory rape, robbery and drug possession, The Spokesman-Review reported Sunday.

The Department of Social and Health Services employees, who required special clearance because they had unsupervised access to the elderly, adults with disabilities and children, kept their jobs after appealing to a review panel, according to documents recently released by DSHS.

About two-thirds of the agency's 18,000 employees work in those kinds of jobs.

The agency refused to disclose the names of the employees with criminal records, citing privacy laws, even though state officials acknowledged criminal backgrounds are public records.

The Spokesman-Review requested the documents after a psychiatric nurse with a criminal record was accused of raping a patient at Eastern State Hospital last year.

The documents provide a more comprehensive picture than agency's news releases from 2002, which stated that 27 state employees had criminal records that prevented them from having unsupervised access to vulnerable populations. A review of the state documents showed at least 113 other employees kept their jobs despite potentially disqualifying criminal records.

The agency initially decided the employees should be removed from the sensitive positions but they were allowed to appeal to the Mitigating Circumstances Review Board, a panel of state employees that voted to let 91 percent keep working.

Panel members "felt that, in their judgment, these crimes and these (job) positions were not incompatible - given the mitigating circumstances," DSHS spokesman Dave Workman said.

"The decisions were not made lightly," said Marilyn Perry, a regional administrator with the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration, the only panel member who spoke to the newspaper. "There was debate among the committee members. Some of those crimes - it was pretty hard to justify that everything is A-OK now."

Mark Stroh, executive director of the Seattle-based Washington Protection and Advocacy System, a federally mandated watchdog group that lobbied for stricter background checks, expressed concern but added that he did not know the employees' names or their full criminal histories.

"The state has the responsibility to assure that people who are vulnerable are in a safe environment," said Stroh. "They need to screen employees accordingly. This list suggests that might not have happened as thoroughly as it should have."

DSHS Secretary Dennis Braddock, who is leaving the agency this week, and Bernie Friedman, special assistant for risk management, refused the newspaper's interview requests.

DSHS spokesmen said those who want to know who had criminal records can search for court records on any employee. "The court records are public information," spokesman Steve Williams said. "You have access to them. You can have access to all 18,000 DSHS employees."

The Legislature ordered DSHS to conduct background checks in 2001, two years after the agency found 13 registered sex offenders and 194 people with other serious criminal convictions receiving public funds as child-care providers.

When the resulting reviews were done in 2002, employees were asked to report on their criminal records and their names were checked against a Washington State Patrol database.

As a result of negotiations with two state employee unions, those who faced loss of their jobs could appeal to the mitigating circumstances board.

The panel heard appeals from 192 state employees over several months and voted to approve 174, some of whom had felony convictions and criminal histories including homicide, manslaughter, arson, prostitution and indecent exposure, DSHS records show.

Approximately 132 of the employees still work for DSHS, according to an estimate provided by the state last month.

Nine workers with criminal records did not appeal and lost their positions, including seven who were transferred to other state jobs that do not require special clearance, according to DSHS.

One case involved a 56-year-old violent offender who worked for the state's Mental Health Division and had pleaded innocent to murder by reason of insanity in 1981 but did not disclose that information, which was uncovered by the patrol.

Another was a 46-year-old employee with the Developmental Disabilities Division who had four arrests for theft and assault in the previous decade, including a conviction for felony theft.

A 64-year-old Developmental Disabilities worker lost three adult family home licenses in 1996 after two residents died in a fire and several others suffered serious injuries, and a 62-year-old employee with convictions for shoplifting and felony robbery worked in the Economic Services Administration.

They were among dozens of employees whom nursing homes and other providers would have been required to "automatically disqualify," according to the documents.

"It appears that DSHS used a double standard, a more lenient standard for its current employees," said Jeff Crollard, a lawyer for the Washington State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program. "It does not appear that they followed the intent of the legislation."

"We think it was a fair process," countered Tim Welch, a spokesman for the Washington Federation of State Employees, the state's largest union. "If DSHS didn't want any felons or lawbreakers to work for DSHS, they shouldn't have hired them in the first place. I think they need to catch these problems as people are applying for the jobs."

---

Information from: The Spokesman-Review, http://www.spokesmanreview.com

[January]

I am all for integrating people who are rehabilitated back in the work force, but there has to be a limit. Here, people in that position who work are under close supervision by a gov't agency.

I am horrified the authorities did not check the background of this man and even more horrified that he could have access to the very ppl who need the most special care!

[inkblot]

Good point about rehab'ed people. I agree with that. I am especially concerned about repeat offenders--the second article mentions that, too!

I agree with Jan... there has to be a line. If you ask me there are only so many chances one has in life. Like the old saying goes, screw me once it's on you, screw me twice it's on me. I'm not sure I believe repeat offenders should have the chance. I guess, though, that there are exceptions to every rule. It is a very scarry article though.

Ryan

here in my town, three workers, separately, in children's homes have been convicted of rape, sodomy or molestation...and yes, it was always a child in their care. most of the girls in these homes have HUGE sexual issues and these state workers are taking advantage of that. when i worked at the psych hospital, an aide who had big sexual issues was allowed to come into group with me.......guess who he sat by? the one vulnerable female patient in the room!!! i dismissed him from the group, which made him furious.....the girl was all over him in under 5 minutes.......he knew who to pick!! he professed total innocence concerning her.......B.S.......a predator is a predator.......

That's disgusting Pat. I just don't get why that kind of garbage happens. Was this guy a repeat offender?

Ryan

this guy was an aide that the hospital had HIRED! i forced the issue until they got rid of him. i heard that he tried to date that patient after she got out.....yuck..