Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “annual background checks” line is once again straight from those openfcps hacks. No, the school system doesn’t need to spend time and money doing that. Police need to fulfill their legal duty to inform schools of arrests. Why does open FCPS always come back to attacks on the public schools, hmmm, why could that be?

I'm not in Open FCPS (ugh, are they still a thing?) but I don't see why we can't have annual background checks. The school board wastes plenty of money on other stuff. This might actually prevent this sort of situation from happening again. That said, it does seem like the fault lies with the police department.

There aren’t enough resources (money nor people) to do background checks annually.

The backgound checks are cheaper than one kf the covid tests we have sitting in storage.

This is a background check, not a credit check. They do more than run reports from a series of databases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “annual background checks” line is once again straight from those openfcps hacks. No, the school system doesn’t need to spend time and money doing that. Police need to fulfill their legal duty to inform schools of arrests. Why does open FCPS always come back to attacks on the public schools, hmmm, why could that be?

I'm not in Open FCPS (ugh, are they still a thing?) but I don't see why we can't have annual background checks. The school board wastes plenty of money on other stuff. This might actually prevent this sort of situation from happening again. That said, it does seem like the fault lies with the police department.

There aren’t enough resources (money nor people) to do background checks annually.

The backgound checks are cheaper than one kf the covid tests we have sitting in storage.

+1. And it’s quite possible that any decent vetting during the hiring process would have surfaced red flags with regards to scum like this Glasgow counselor, even if the two arrests occurred after he was hired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “annual background checks” line is once again straight from those openfcps hacks. No, the school system doesn’t need to spend time and money doing that. Police need to fulfill their legal duty to inform schools of arrests. Why does open FCPS always come back to attacks on the public schools, hmmm, why could that be?

I'm not in Open FCPS (ugh, are they still a thing?) but I don't see why we can't have annual background checks. The school board wastes plenty of money on other stuff. This might actually prevent this sort of situation from happening again. That said, it does seem like the fault lies with the police department.

There aren’t enough resources (money nor people) to do background checks annually.

The backgound checks are cheaper than one kf the covid tests we have sitting in storage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The “annual background checks” line is once again straight from those openfcps hacks. No, the school system doesn’t need to spend time and money doing that. Police need to fulfill their legal duty to inform schools of arrests. Why does open FCPS always come back to attacks on the public schools, hmmm, why could that be?

I'm not in Open FCPS (ugh, are they still a thing?) but I don't see why we can't have annual background checks. The school board wastes plenty of money on other stuff. This might actually prevent this sort of situation from happening again. That said, it does seem like the fault lies with the police department.

There aren’t enough resources (money nor people) to do background checks annually.

Anonymous wrote:The “annual background checks” line is once again straight from those openfcps hacks. No, the school system doesn’t need to spend time and money doing that. Police need to fulfill their legal duty to inform schools of arrests. Why does open FCPS always come back to attacks on the public schools, hmmm, why could that be?

I'm not in Open FCPS (ugh, are they still a thing?) but I don't see why we can't have annual background checks. The school board wastes plenty of money on other stuff. This might actually prevent this sort of situation from happening again. That said, it does seem like the fault lies with the police department.

The “annual background checks” line is once again straight from those openfcps hacks. No, the school system doesn’t need to spend time and money doing that. Police need to fulfill their legal duty to inform schools of arrests. Why does open FCPS always come back to attacks on the public schools, hmmm, why could that be?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to summarize:

The Chesterfield police (who were required by law to inform the school system that they had arrested an FCPS employee), FAILED TO NOTIFY THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

This is 100% on the Chesterfield Police.

Why isn’t FCPS running background checks yearly on employees? Surely this would have come up in his record?

We kind of HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE to check for that, don't we?! I mean.... we have this LEGAL OBLIGATION for the people who ARREST someone to find out if they are a teacher, and then the people who did the arresting are LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO NOTIFY the school district. Given that only a tiny fraction of one-percent of all school employees are arrested for sex crimes, it's far more efficient for the police to notify a school district when they have the rare arrest of a school teacher/employee. Of course, that presumes THE POLICE ARE ACTUALLY CAPABLE OF COMPLYING WITH THE LAW. But, you know ... that's probably asking too much of the police ... to actually fulfill their legal obligation to notify the school employer properly, right?

Let's put the burden on the school district to spend a lot of $$ and hours and effort running background checks on ALL the school employees EVERY year. That would make a lot more sense

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is that FCPS is hiring bottom-of-the-barrel scum in the first place and then not running annual background checks.

Yep. They do one background check when you first get hired and that’s it. Pathetic!

That's not accurate.

Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is that FCPS is hiring bottom-of-the-barrel scum in the first place and then not running annual background checks.

This is an abysmal post and you should be ashamed of yourself, troll.

Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is that FCPS is hiring bottom-of-the-barrel scum in the first place and then not running annual background checks.

Yep. They do one background check when you first get hired and that’s it. Pathetic!

The bigger issue is that FCPS is hiring bottom-of-the-barrel scum in the first place and then not running annual background checks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but they buried the update in the middle of their article and didn’t correct the timeline at the bottom. This is a huge change from their first narrative and, if they were a reputable media company, they would put that up front.

the title of the article is "Police email about school counselor's 2020 sex crime arrest was never delivered to FCPS". How is that burying an update?

They should've waited for their FOIA response or confirmation from Chesterfield that the emails went through or didn't. There was a time that reporters would do that due diligence to make sure they had the full picture. But those days seem to be long gone in this age of rushing to be the first to report on something so you can get the clicks

This was not the title when I made that post. Glad they finally updated it.

Anonymous wrote:So to summarize:

The Chesterfield police (who were required by law to inform the school system that they had arrested an FCPS employee), FAILED TO NOTIFY THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

This is 100% on the Chesterfield Police.

Why isn’t FCPS running background checks yearly on employees? Surely this would have come up in his record?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to summarize:

The Chesterfield police (who were required by law to inform the school system that they had arrested an FCPS employee), FAILED TO NOTIFY THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

This is 100% on the Chesterfield Police.

It seems to also reflect the barriers constructed by FCPS to make it difficult to contact anyone directly. Operate with a fortress mentality and you end up employing sex offenders for years with no action taken.

Are you joking? I don't even know what the structure is in FCPS around security, etc., but I have common sense. The Chesterfield police surely have a contact within the Fairfax Co. police, who certainly have a contact in FCPS. This is not hard, and considering it's a legal duty to notify I would certainly want to make sure I notified someone and had proof of it.

The Chesterfield police were able to pick up the phone and talk to someone in FCPS to get the email addresses. Did they even try to talk to anyone in the Superintendent's office?

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but they buried the update in the middle of their article and didn’t correct the timeline at the bottom. This is a huge change from their first narrative and, if they were a reputable media company, they would put that up front.

the title of the article is "Police email about school counselor's 2020 sex crime arrest was never delivered to FCPS". How is that burying an update?

They should've waited for their FOIA response or confirmation from Chesterfield that the emails went through or didn't. There was a time that reporters would do that due diligence to make sure they had the full picture. But those days seem to be long gone in this age of rushing to be the first to report on something so you can get the clicks