Corra Daily Planet

In case you have been asleep for the past couple of years, every state is hurting for money. There are budgetary concerns and some serious belt tightening operations.  Some states have order furloughs for employees and some states will close their courthouses on a periodic schedule.

Court closures may delay background checks as the courts tend to see a rush the day before the furloughed closure and the day after as well.  As the court clerks are often understaffed and overwhelmed, some delays are inevitable and unavoidable.   So for those who rely on country criminal searches as part of their background checks for their preemployment screening programs, we try to keep you apprised of any scheduled court closings.   Here is the schedule  for New Hampshire–

We would like to take this opportunity to notify you in advance of the following New Hampshire Court closures.  As a cost savings measure, the courts have pre-established dates of furlough and are listed below.  Should we encounter additional notifications, we will send additional memorandums.

Jurisdictions with dates of closure are listed below:

There has been enough mayhem going on in the healthcare and caregiver sectors to cause enough worry for the oversight agencies.  There have been various reports and news articles, the most notable a joint study been Pro Publica and the Los Angeles Times, detailing how healthcare can find work, despite criminal histories and disciplinary actions taken against them.  I have written about this subject a number of times.  One such article is entitled, Suspect Caregivers Missed on Healthcare Sanctions Background Checks.

As if often the case, once the proverbial bad apple turns up, the governing bodies of various healthcare groups decide it is time to move forward with background checks and other forms of greater scrutiny.   One such bad apple had been convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.   When it was time to apply for his EMS license, or Emergency Medical Services,  he answered on the form that, no, he had never been convicted a felony or misdemeanor.  In short, he lied.  Not the first one to do so.

As the Emergency Service Licensing Board does not mandate background checks on EMS workers, the candidate’s previous criminal records were not discovered.  It took an anonymous letter to raise eyebrows and to look further.   The man was then denied his license renewal.

With the New Mexico regulations now in effect, State regulations allow the Emergency Medical Services Licensing Commission to deny, suspend or revoke the license of anyone found having sex with a patient, or who has a conviction for a felony or misdemeanor, or a conviction of a misdemeanor involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or moral turpitude based on a court record of conviction.  But there is no mandate for background checks.   So how do you find out about an EMT’s  criminal history, whether he is a sex offender, or has been disciplined by related bodies?  You don’t.   The EMS Bureau has relied on self-reporting.    Up until now.

According to Fire Engineering, more than 20 states now deny licenses to people convicted of certain felony crimes, and the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians denies certification to anyone convicted of felonies involving sexual misconduct; physical or sexual abuse of children, the elderly or the infirm; and any crime involving patients.

The discredited EMT  worker may be the Albuquerque’s “Arroyo Molester.”   The suspect awaits trial  in the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center on 25 felony charges, including criminal sexual penetration of a child under 13, kidnapping with intent of great bodily harm, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sexual exploitation of a child.

I think it is fair to say that at times we are not at all proactive about background checks.  In fact, it often takes the worst examples in society, before we can move forward with background checks and other monitoring instruments that help protect the workplace and society in general.   This could be one of those examples.

Hiring care givers without conducting background checks has long been a subject of controversy.   Part of the controversial is over how many staffing agencies either fail to conduct background checks on their prospective employees or they run such shoddy background checks that many care givers and healthcare workers with criminal convictions slip through the cracks.  These are care givers that have serious substance abuse issues, have been sexual offenders, or have committed everything from petty theft to violent crime.  Some have mistreated their younger charges, and some have mistreated the elderly.

I have written on this subject before and have cited the joint Pro Publica Los Angeles Times Report that detailed the shoddy practices involved with hiring healthcare workers and care givers.   One such article I wrote was entitled,  Residential Care Workers Slip Through Background Checks.   Part of that article was based on the Pro Publica/LA Times Report that won the Pulitzer Prize this year.   Among other things, the article described how healthcare workers and care givers with criminal records and disciplinary actions against them avoid detection  by  flitting about from state to state.   When staffing agencies or state and public service agencies fail to conduct the appropriate background checks then these health care employees are free to repeat the same misdeed.

According to the Mercury News.com,  Napa County, California had ordered that all care givers must undergo background checks.   The new law applies to privately hired care givers as well as those in service with the public agencies.   There are a few exemptions, including those care givers already registered with Napa’s in-home care services.

The new ordinance goes a long way in protecting elderly citizens who live within Napa County from predatory care givers who can rob and otherwise abuse them.   A smart move and a true demonstration that Napa County is determined to protect its older and frailer citizens.

The Colorado Marijuana Law, allowing citizens pot for medical use, never did address certain issues.  The main issue that comes back to bite employers is how they should deal with employees who are under the influence of marijuana in the work place.  While the law prohibits actual pot smoking in the work place, for medical purposes or otherwise, it never did address the issue of people coming to work stoned.  I wrote about this earlier in an article entitled, Background Checks and Employees Using Medical Marijuana.

So what to do? Background checks reveal of course that the employee or job applicant has a legitimate permit for medical marijuana use.  Should this be the same as if he, say, had a prescription for other drugs?  Obviously, perspective changes when someone is working with Valium or Vicodin in his system, as long as that employee has a legitimate prescription.   Xanax and Prozac are also received in the workplace with less rancor than medical marijuana.  Yest, the aforementioned drugs can also alter the consciousness.  In fact, they are designed to alter the consciousness.

Oregon and Montana have shed some light on the subject by declaring through the courts that employees do not enjoy job protection under the current medical marijuana laws.  Rulings in  Washington State also indicate that any employee filing suit for loss of job because of medical marijuana would be coming up against a dead end.

According to the Grand Junction Free Press, more people have obtained medical marijuana cards.  Stands to reason.  Here in California it seems like almost mandated that everyone have a medical marijuana card.

I guess for the time being anyway, medical marijuana and employee job protection falls into a very gray area.   Hazy, in fact.  So what it comes down to is the discretion and particular concerns of each individual employer.  Some will not tolerate employees showing up to the job stone.  Some will keep and eye on them.   To make sure there are no performance issues or dangers in the workplace that the employee would cause to himself or fellow workers.  And some employers, depending on the job and the business, might not care at all.  In fact, in a good many cases, workers have been coming to work stoned for years.  Without or without a permit.

Which is why there is the need to conduct background checks, including drug tests, if you are concerned with drug use.  Perhaps it is best that it is up to the employer.  Employers know what they need from an employee and what they can live with and what they can live without.

Meanwhile, there is no smoking dope on the job.  Not even in the bathroom.  Not in your car.  Yeah, sure.