Lisa Dorhauer was hired on as an administrative assistant by Lutheran Social Services of the South (LSS) which primarily services disaster victims, the elderly and children.

Once situated, she began submitting phony expense reports to provide a cover-up for her theft over a period of two years in which she stole an amount close to $46,000. Definitely not chump change.

Dorhauer’s pre-employment screening was conducted by the Texas Department of Family and Child Protective Services (TDFCP) which determines if job candidates are a threat to children.

Court records turned up two prior theft charges and were provided to LSS, stapled to the back of her report. In 1994 she had pled guilty theft by check for to writing over 100 bad checks to a range of businesses over several years. In 1999 she was charged with misdemeanor theft charge for stealing over $3,000 from the Round Rock Kiwanis Little League. She was sentenced to probation in both cases.

But the LSS neglected to even review the report detailing these charges leaving them totally unaware of Dorhauer’s criminal background.  It wasn’t until LSS became suspicious that they looked at the TDFCP criminal background report which had been in their possession since 2007.

Dorhauer was arrested on June 6^th and presently remains free on a $15,000 bond while awaiting trial on charges of felony theft.

LSS spokesman, Scott Carroll, said in a statement, “I think this is an isolated incident of one person who stole from the agency. The agency still does a lot of good work. We provide services to a lot of people who need it.”

But it raises the question: if there was one individual whose criminal record went unnoticed for so long, might there be other Lisa Dorhauer-types employed at the LSS?

Since the incident, the LSS has initiated a review of over 1,000 employees staffed at locations in Texas and Louisiana. Carroll would not comment on whether additional employees with criminal records had been uncovered.

Changes in policy now require all background reports to be reviewed by the agency’s chief operating officer.

Running a background check on a potential employee provides an employer with information allowing for informed hiring decisions. However, information on an applicant won’t do you a whole lot of good if you don’t review it.

Failure to do so and you might find yourself the victim of the next Lisa Dorhauer!

In 2000, Florida enacted a then ground-breaking law to combat a “cocaine cowboy” environment of lawlessness gripping Florida ports.

The Florida State Grand Jury described Florida ports at the time as being “virtually unlocked, if not wide open, to traffickers and money launderers, not to mention thieves, terrorists, and dealers in all manner of contraband.”

So, the security law put into requirement criminal background checks for individuals with port entry access and admittance to restricted areas. At the time, it was estimated 60% of dockworkers had some type of criminal background.

The bar was also raised for security requirements at ports. Surprise inspections by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement ensured compliance.

While many applauded the new security standards, other individuals like Mike Rubin, VP of the Florida Ports Council regarded the background checks as a waste of time and resources. “There was never any evidence that this additional background check did anything but cost more money”

Indeed, money was the pivotal concern for repealing the security law. Annual costs for the $50+ background check added up to an annual $3 million dollars to cover all state maritime port workers. Those costs proved to be a bit much for the Florida Port Council to swallow, arguing the costs lessened their competitive edge.

James McDonnough, founder of the Florida Office of Drug Control said port security measures were never popular. “The more security you had, the slower the goods moved and the more money you had to spend. From the get-go, those that worked at the ports didn’t like the idea. They never let go of that view.”

Bill Janes, former director of the Florida Office of Drug Control, thinks repealing the security requirements are a huge mistake: “We have lessened the security in Florida ports. I think the state is taking a huge step backwards.”

A gargantuan amount of cargo and people disgorged by container vessels and cruise ships passes through Florida ports everyday without incident. But with backgrounds checks no longer required, there’s one extra layer of security peeled away. “I think what we’ll see is a return to the bad old days of more drugs coming into the state of Florida,” said McDonough. “Drugs, like water, find the weakest points to flow to. The Florida law just gave [smugglers] a gift: Come on back in.”

Bruce Grant, another alumnus of the Florida Office of Drug Control, can’t be convinced the repeal is a good idea. “The ports can now cut back on the amount they spend on security. That’s got to be detrimental. There’s no way it can’t be.”

Florida shipping port officials; however, don’t see the safety of daily operations being affected with many presently looking for ways to reduce security costs in the wake of the repeal.

Ken Hern at the Port of Palm Beach said “I totally disagree that it’s going to lessen the security of the seaports.”

Repealing background checks are not going to cause the ports of Florida to collapse into anarchy overnight. However, other industries have forsaken security before in the interest of saving money only to have the move blow up in their face.

While a pre-employment background check policy is better off staying in effect, time will ultimately tell whether the repeal proves to be a sound judgment or not.

Highpoint Towing changed its name after it was discovered the owners & employees were engaged in criminal activity.

A criminal case and lawsuit involving an unscrupulous towing company has led to the City of Secaucus in New Jersey to change up the existing law on the books making background checks mandatory for any and all such businesses.

The amended ordinance stipulates that any towing company will need to submit an application that provides information for a background check to “establish the applicant’s good character, honesty, and integrity.”

The background check will focus on looking for any evidence of criminal background or if the applicant has had their driver’s license revoked or suspended within the past year.

Each check will cost $50 per individual and applies to both owners and employees alike.

Town Administrator David Drumeler said, “What [the revised law] does is it allows us to take a look at the backgrounds of towing companies as part of the licensing procedure to make sure that we deem them appropriate.”

It all stems from a criminal case back in December of 2008 where the owner of Highpoint Towing, Steven Avella, was arrested in connection with a variety of criminal schemes orchestrated to fleece auto owners.

One such scheme involved pushing automobiles over a cliff so Highpoint Towing could collect recovery fees. Highpoint employees were also caught stripping a car of expensive parts and replacing them with cheaper replacements. Honestly, it almost makes you want to start riding a bike!

In 2009 Highpoint pled guilty as a corporation for conspiracy to commit theft and insurance fraud. But since no one pled guilty as an individual, it left the crew of would-be crooks able to start a new company and reapply for a new commercial towing contract with Secaucus.

When Secaucus refused the application of the now reformed Avella’s Garage (Formerly Highpoint), owners Robert and Steven Avella filed a lawsuit stating they had never pled guilty, it was the corporate entity that had done so. Their reasoning was the new company could not be held at fault!

This is why Secaucus has now amended their towing ordinance to close any loopholes excusing individuals from being held accountable for criminally exploiting consumers.

To this end, Drumeler feels the amended ordinance should prevent any future headaches

“The outcome of their lawsuit was that we agreed to redo our towing ordinance to make it clearer and more specific about what protections we want in place,” said Drumeler. “We think the [background process] that’s in place now is better than what was there before.”

Well, up until now of course.

The 37-year old firefighter was recently arrested for off-duty drunk driving and then attempted to convince the officer who pulled him over to let him continue on his way “as a professional courtesy.”

The arresting officer thankfully did not extend the courtesy. Two tests on Dudek registered blood-alcohol levels of 0.13 and 0.14. The legal limit in Michigan is 0.08.

Presently, Dudek has been suspended pending the outcome of a department investigation into the matter.

Jeffery Lamarand, Mayor of Taylor, said in a statement, “We have high expectations for the members of the Fire Department, both on duty and off duty. We are taking this situation very seriously.”

The Mayor’s statement; however, begs the question as to where those high expectations were during his initial hiring?

City officials have questioned Dudek’s ongoing employment despite his criminal background since last July.

Dudek was originally hired n 2003 during the tenure of Mayor Gregory Pitoniak. At the time, former Police Commander, Dan Crowell, issued a recommendation in a submitted report not to hire Dudek.

A standard criminal background check run on Dudek revealed a lengthy police record including:

• A 1997 drunken driving arrest in Trenton.
• In 2000 Dudek was arrested in Cleveland for resisting arrest and disorderly conduct (The case was later dismissed.)
• Another arrest in 2000 for driving with a suspended license
• In 2002 Dudek remained in form, racking up an assault and battery charge for breaking a bottle over an individuals head during a bar fight.

In addition to the criminal background findings, it was found Dudek had not been entirely truthful while filling out a questionnaire as part of the application process.

He was hired regardless.

Dudek repaid the city’s act of generosity in 2005 with a malicious destruction of property charge in the city of Ferndale by jumping up and down on the hood of a Ferrari.

He continued on with the department until 2007 when he was let go because of city budget restrictions instituted by the administration of Mayor Cameron Priebe.

Dudek remained in line for service recall and when he was inevitably brought back, another recommendation against hiring him back was inevitably submitted.

Mayor Laramand stated when Dudek was recalled, a contract with the firefighter union mandated the rehire.

City government and a firefighter union willingly ignoring red flags and allowing a thug like this to remain on the payroll as a public servant?

Despite the glaring criminal record, Fire Chief Steve Portis and Mayor Lamarand cited the fact Dudek had zero run-ins with the law from 2005-2010.  

Hopefully, the City of Taylor’s hiring and retention system is going to be undergoing some serious revision in the wake of this scandal.

The citizens of Taylor can only hope in the future a criminal background report (not to mention adverse hiring recommendations) is taken seriously…not waived aside like a traffic ticket.

Mark Evan Brown, a 37 year old Principal at Highland Christian School in Arlington, Washington has been arrested and charged with 3rd-degree rape of a 14 year old student

Parents of the victimized student stated in the suit the school had conducted an inadequate background check which allowed for the hiring of 40-year old Mark Brown, the “principal without principles.” 

 Hired in 2006, Mark Brown had sought employment at the private Christian school after having lost his job at Concrete High School in Skagit County for allegedly engaging in inappropriate conduct with a female student.

While the student stated nothing happened outside of text messaging, a dinner date and few rides home had transpired, it was enough to give Brown the boot.

As the principal at Highland, Brown is alleged in 2008 to have incited a girl to run away from home and hide out at the school where he supposedly raped her.

Detectives found over 600 text messages exchanged between the two, indicating Brown was planning on keeping the girl at a variety of locations and everything would be “alright once things settled down.”

Brown denied the charges, but he was terminated from his position at Highland in July of 2008. He later pled guilty in 2009 to second degree kidnapping of a minor and sentenced to a year in jail.

Community corrections officer Christopher Glans wrote, “While evidence may be insufficient to support the findings in the current case, I believe sufficient data exists to conclude that, in the past Mr. Brown has actively conspired to create relationships with minors to enable him to act in accordance with his illicit desires,”

In court documents, Mitch Cogdill of Everett wrote of Highland being completely unaware of “Brown’s proclivities to be engaged with minor girls, but failed to conduct a reasonable and complete background check before hiring him and placing him in a position of authority.”

According to an attorney representing Highland Christian Schools, school officials prior to Browns hiring had conducted a background check. The check also included speaking with former employers.

However, Don Beazizo, principal of Concrete High School, stated he hadn’t communicated with anyone from Highland prior to Brown’s hiring regarding his misconduct and termination.

Highland is learning an expensive lesson from this and regardless of the civil suits outcome, they are likely to be a little more thorough in their hiring process for years to come.

The new legislation, sponsored by Senator Charles Fuschillo, Chairman of the Senate’s Transportation Committee, will require newly signed bus drivers to undergo a criminal background screening and be placed under a 90 day probationary period while the check is being conducted.

Drivers presently employed would need to undertake the criminal background check the next time their commercial driver’s license is renewed.

The bill is a response to a deadly bus crash on March 12^th, 2011, which resulted in the deaths of 15 individuals returning to NYC from a chartered bus trip to Connecticut.

An official investigation in the aftermath determined the driver had a criminal background as well as a negligent driving and performance record. There was no record the driver’s employer had ever bothered to enact a background screening prior to employment.

“The horrific bus crash near New York City two months ago shined a spotlight on bus safety and what we have found since then is truly shocking,” said Senator Fushcillo.

“There have been additional accidents, more fatalities and a police crackdown has uncovered a widespread problem of people with criminal histories fraudulently obtaining commercial drivers licenses.”

Indeed, the March 12^th crash has put the spotlight on the state’s loosely governed charter bus industry.  Screening policies ensuring standardized performance and safety for drivers behind the wheel have, up until this point, been inconsistent and loosely enforced at best.

Clearly the “Wild West” approach to governing driver safety standards is fast drawing to a close. Senator Fushchillo emphasized the need for bus companies to ensure passengers are in safe and capable hands when traveling.

“When a bus driver gets behind the wheel, passengers trust that the driver is qualified and responsible; they are putting their lives in the driver’s hands. When a bus company decides to give someone that responsibility, they deserve to have all the relevant information about that person’s background.”

While a standardized background screening policy for bus drivers won’t bring back the victims of errant drivers, it will ensure criminally negligent drivers won’t be in a position to endanger innocent passengers making their way along the highways and interstates of New York.

Responding to complaints that the $50.00 criminal background check was cost-prohibitive, the Kenner city council worked to amend legislation in a which bartender applicant now can fill out a signed affidavit instead.

Councilwoman Michele Branigan said, “We’re giving people an either/or.”

The affidavit is a notarized document indicating the licensee has no criminal background. Anyone found falsifying or concealing information will find his or her license revoked.

Presently the licensing process requires individuals to be 18 years of age. Applicants may not have any felony or prostitution charges on their record.

Attorney Tamitha Shaw aided in amending the city legislation and stated the option would strike a balance between fairness and safety: “We don’t want to be cost-prohibitive, but we do want to know who’s behind the bars.”

Given the option to either pay for a $50 background check or use the notarized affidavit, well, it’s obvious what the majority of the applicants are going to opt for.

The affidavit option seems to operate more on an honor system, presenting more of an opportunity for exploitation by individuals.

It’s not really made clear how the affidavit process works; specifically, what kind of paperwork needs to be presented to prove a clear criminal background.

Does one provide documents from the local court/police department or does someone simply present a handwritten note:

“I PROMISE I am not someone with a background riddled with felonies.”

Will the city have a list of approved notaries available or can one simply shop around until able to find someone willing to notarize their document, no questions asked?

The $50 background check, however, offers the city and drinking establishments a standardized process ensuring all Kenner license applicants are subjected to the same screening procedure.

A background check would also rely on only one vendor, reducing the potential for error or exploitation. If someone has a shady record, they’re going to be marked from the get-go once their screening is complete.

City of Kenner, we know you’re trying to be fair but when it comes to pre-employment screening, providing “options” dilutes the overall effectiveness of the process.

Superintendant Matthew Malone spoke plainly: “The reality is we have a broken system. I am absolutely outraged, but we are rectifying it now.”

That very broken system held up a background check for a district volunteer math tutor who was charged in March 2011 with raping a third grade student.

The state-mandated background checks are required for teachers every three years and every year for individuals such as coaches and volunteer workers who have unmonitored access to children.

But the District Human Resources Department in charge of handling the checks for the 15,000+ student school system is presently drowning in the number of background checks that have piled up.

Superintendant Malone reported, “Forms have instead piled up in file cabinets as an overwhelmed staff became buried under an antiquated paper tracking system.”

“Look, we are taking the bull by the horns,’’ stated Malone “I’ve been the one upfront about all of this. We are not making excuses. When you come across something that is broken, you have to blow it up, and then fix it.’’

The good news is that new initiatives are underway with two new electronic databases (one for school employees and the other for contract workers/volunteers/etc) launched last week to enable smoother background check processing.

New checks for 2,500 to 3,000 school employees are slated to be completed within the next 6-8 week timeframe. An audit is also being performed to determine the time frame in which the district background checking process essentially laid down and died.

Any Human Resources Department needs to know that background checks are serious business. A pre-employment screening or background renewal requires time, research and good communication to ensure accurate results.

Assuming a background check is something that can “wait until tomorrow” is a mindset that will only not only negatively affect the organization or business, but also the very population that entity exists to serve.

California is one of the few states which does not regulate in-home care agencies and this is of utmost importance as more and more people entering the elder stage of their lives are seeking alternatives to being placed in a nursing home or other such institution.  The trend is largely becoming in-home care.

The report found that over a quarter of in-home caregivers who were convicted of crimes against the people they were supposed to be looking after had previous convictions of a similar nature.  Furthermore, while many agencies claim to background check their employees the background checks range from unreliable databases to full background checks which are limited by California’s limited reporting law (the law states only convictions within a 7-year scope can be reported). 

Did you know that California residents who are hiring in-home care have a right to request a background check from the Department of Justice?  We’re not surprised if you answered no.  The Senate report noted that in the first three months of 2011 not one background check for this purpose was requested from the Department of Justice.

From legitimate in-home care business to individuals advertising their services on Craigslist, it seems that California should make regulating this industry a priority as soon as possible. Due to the lack of regulation, the state has no idea how many people are acting as in-home caregivers, let alone how many of those have criminal convictions and are preying on the people in their care.  The Senate report has multiple examples of people with criminal records who have gone on to repeat their behavior and harm the elderly. 

Some potentially good news is coming out of this report.  One of the recommendations it makes is for California to allow consumer reporting agencies (the legal term for employment screening companies) to report convictions older than seven years, at least for caregiver positions.  Among other recommendations, they would also like to see a registry developed wherein a caregiver could have a background check run on themself in order to be listed in the directory.  The registry could also include those caregivers with criminal convictions. 

After reviewing the statistics in the Senate’s report, it seems obvious that there is a need in California for some regulation to protect our elderly. You can view the report here.

Well, as of this week, the Arizona legislature has passed a bill which, if signed into law, will  protect employers’ drug testing policies.  The bill set out to define “impairment” as mentioned in Proposition 203.  It will not change Arizona’s medical marijuana law, but rather protects an employer from any legal liability if they are “acting in good faith based upon that definition of impairment.” 

How does the bill define “impairment?”  “Impairment means symptoms that a prospective employee or employee while working may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol that may decrease or lessen the employee’s performance of the duties or tasks of the employee’s position.  Including symptoms of the employee’s speech, walking, standing, physical dexterity, agility, coordination, actions, movement, demeanor, appearance, clothing, odor, irrational or unusual behavior, negligence or carelessness in operating equipment, matchinery or production or manufacturing processes, disregard for the safety of the employee or others, involvement in an accident that results in serious damage to equipment, machinery or property, disruption of a production or manufacturing process, any injury to the employee or others or other symptoms causing a reasonable suspicion of the use of drugs or alcohol.

Broken down, the bill says if an employer acts in “good faith” in defining impairment of an employee or applicant as defined by the new law, they will be shielded from legal liability when taking an adverse action.  According ot the bill, good faith” includes:

• Observed conduct, behavior or appearance
• Information reported by a person believed to be reliable, including a report by a person who witnessed the use or possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia at work.
• Written, electronic or verbal statements.
• Lawful video surveillance.
• Records of government agencies, law enforcement agencies or courts
• Results of a test for the use of alcohol or drugs.
• Other information reasonably believed to be reliable or accurate.

The bill is on its way to be signed by Governor Jan Brewer, and if its successful will keep Arizona employers and their businesses protected against legal action due to issues from Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.

A full copy of the bill can be seen by clicking here.