Slidecast: The HR Pro's Guide to Navigating Corporate Politics

To give it a little visual aspect, I created a slidecast of my recent podcast interview with Jeremy Eskenazi of Riviera Advisers. He is speaking at the joint meeting of the DFW Staffing Management Association and DallasHR on March 16th. You can register at the DFWSMA website.

 

Podcast: The HR Pro's Guide to Navigating Corporate Politics

View more webinars from Imperative Information Group

The HR Pro's Guide to Navigating Corporate Politics

On March 16th, Jeremy Eskenazi of Riviera Advisors will be presenting this topic to a joint meeting of the DFW Staffing Management Association and Dallas HR.

Jeremy's presentation has been approved by HRCI for one strategic recertification credit! This event is so big that we've resurrected the Imperative Podcast to help promote it!

You can use the player below to listen to the podcast from the website (mp3 file) or, if you're really cool, you can download the AAC version here to see graphics and access hyperlinks. This version plays in QuickTimes or iTunes.

2011-02-21_DFWSMA_Eskenazi

You can register for this event at the DFW SMA's website. Hope to see you there!

No Background Check for Accused Sex Offender Working at Lufkin Apartment Complex

Had the owners of the Acadia Arms Apartments in Lufkin, Texas completed a background check on Jose Diaz before hiring him as a handyman, they would have learned that he has convictions for driving while intoxicated, driving while his license was suspended, and a felony conviction for possession of cocaine for which he spent eleven months in prison before being paroled in 2007.

This is definitely not someone you to have keys to your apartment.

According to television station KTRE: The owner says they didn't check him since he was only contracted for ten days.

A female resident says she awoke inher bedroom on January 6th to find Diaz pulling off her shorts and began screaming, according to The Lufkin Daily News. When her roommate responded with a gun, Diaz left the apartment.

Since the incident, several other residents have made complaints against Diaz, including one, according to television station KLTV, who says he... it's just too gross - you can read it on their website if you wish. (Warning: It is both graphic and gross.)

Many employers fail to conduct a meaningful criminal background check on contingent or temporary workers, thinking that they will only be around for a short time. That faulty thinking fails to recognize that a temporary worker with ill intent only needs a short amount of time to identify the vulnerabilities of the employer, coworkers, or customers.  Imperative recommends that our clients select temporary employees with the same degree of diligence as regular employees.

Church and Nursing Home Fall Prey to "He's a Nice Guy" Syndrome

My friend Greg Love is an attorney who, through his firm Ministry Safe, trains churches and community service organizations on how to keep sex offenders from harming their organizations. In his presentations he often laments that the Church is the last place where someone can show up and get access to kids or other vulnerable populations just by asking.

Greg's point is that there is a tendency in a religious environment to presume to know someone's "heart" and give them the benefit of the doubt along with access to kids, the infirm, or others who are vulnerable. The problem is that many deeply troubled and potentially dangerous people know how to talk the talk and appear to walk the walk. By the time their deception is identified, it is often too late.

That appears to be the case with this guy, Matthew Porter, a "volunteer associate pastor" and nursing home chaplain in Granbury, Texas.

According to The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Porter has been accused of placing a hidden camera in a bathroom used by employees at Harbor Lakes Plaza Nursing and Rehabilitation, where he was acting as a chaplain.

Apparently, only after this investigation began did the nursing home or The Church at Granbury learn that he was convicted in Manatee County, Florida for nine counts of video voyeurism. According to the probable cause affidavit filed in the Florida case, Porter videoed the bathroom activities of members of a juvenille Bible study group he held in his apartment. He was sentenced to 120 days in prison and one year probation, which he was allowed to serve in Texas.

What is even more disconcerting is that while on probation he received counseling at Gateway Community Church in Granbury, and was allowed to volunteer and act as a chaplain by both Granbury churches. "We let him do that because he was in counseling at the same time," Gateway's former music minister, who also counseled Porter, is quoted as saying. He added that he now believes that Porter lied to him about the Florida circumstances, though the Star-Telegram article doesn't say how.

Which brings us to another issue my friend Greg Love often points out. Individuals who act out in this way (Greg often refers to them as predators) know who to cultivate the trust of gatekeepers - parents, church leaders, workplace supervisors - the very people whose job it is to protect vulnerable populations.

When conducting background checks, we often see situations where an employment applicant will admit to a minor criminal offense that, once the background check has been completed, turns out to be a gross reduction of the actual offense(s). Employers are sometimes so impressed that the applicant is forthright about past offenses, particularly minor but emberrasing ones, that they let down their guard and fail to conduct proper due diligence.

Additionally, many organizations seem to equate how much an individual is being compensated with the level of the background check that is conducted. Never mind that a "volunteer pastor" or "chaplain" is automatically given immediate credibility by those he or she encounters and the potential for damage to others and the organization is often greater than many other more highly compensated positions. Organizations need to carefully review the risks associated with a position rather than the compensation level when determining the necessary level of due diligence.

Meanwhile, Hood County Sheriff investigators are still trying to identify Porter's vicitims from the hidden camera images they found. He is out on $20,000 bond so if you use a public restroom in Granbury... well, I'm just saying.

In Defense of Social Media and HR

Last week, I had the pleasure of presenting The Business Case for Social Media in HR to the Hill Country Human Resources Management Association. What business does the president of the best background screening company in the universe have talking to HR folks about social media, you ask?

I was an HR-guy long before I was a background checks guy. In fact, Imperative Information Group grew out of my HR consulting practice and before that I was the HR guy tasked with, among lots of other things, managing the background screening relationship for a large North Texas hospital chain. So, HR and I go way back.

As far as social media goes, I just think it is really cool. I'm seeing smart recruiters like Jim Schnyder at Pepsico/Frito Lay and Craig Fisher and companies like Intuit do smart and creative things to use social media to attract active and passive candidates and evangelize their employment brand and I almost want to get into recruiting. Short of that, I'm always looking for information that can be helpful to my clients in executing their people strategy and social media has been a big part of that lately.

The HR pros at Hill Country HRMA were really gracious and I enjoyed our time together. Renee Holloway, who coordinated my visit to San Marcos, was extremely kind in a follow up email:

Mr. Coffey,

Thank you so much for your humorous and thought provoking presentation!  The buzz from local HR professionals was top notch about your topic!  We thank you so much for your valuable insight on social media, your time, travel and presentation.
 
May your 2011 be blessed!
 
Renee Holloway PHR

Though some of the slides may be out of context apart from the rest of my "humorous and thought provoking presentation" (I'm going to milk that one!), here is a copy of the ever-evolving slide deck for this presentation:

The Business Case for Social Media in HR

View more presentations from Imperative Information Group.

To put one thing in context from the slides, I want to point out that I don't encourage HR professionals to use Facebook or other social media as a background checking tool for actual candidates. However, recognizing that they are going to do so, I try in the presentation to give them guidelines to consider that may help them stay out of hot water.

The best bet is still to partner with a third-party, like Imperative Information Group, to act as a firewall between the employer and potentially discriminatory information.

Also, here is a list of my upcoming presentations to HR groups:

January 27th: Pineywoods SHRM, Lufkin, TX; Background Checks Under Fire: Employer Considerations to Avoid Discrimination Claims

February 8th: Permian Basin HR, Odessa, TX; What Employers Need to Know About Background Checks

February 9th: Laredo SHRM, Laredo, TX; The Business Case for Social Media in HR

Feburary 10th: Concho Valley SHRM, San Angelo, TX; Background Checks Under Fire: Employer Considerations to Avoid Discrimination Claims

February 17th: East Texas HRA, Lufkin/Tyler, TX; Background Checks Under Fire: Employer Considerations to Avoid Discrimination Claims

March 4th: Williamson County HRMA, Round Rock, TX; What Employers Need to Know About Background Checks

April 12th: Corsicana HR, Corsicana, TX; The Business Case for Social Media in HR

April 21st: Fort Worth HRMA, Fort Worth, TX;  Background Checks Under Fire: Employer Considerations to Avoid Discrimination Claims with Julie Ross, JD!

Family Hires Identity Thief as Nanny

Carollena Vaccaro has a long criminal history that includes a felony conviction for possession of a forged instrument. So how did she get a job as a nanny working for an entrepreneurial family?

Simple, according to the Rochester, New York Democrat and Chronicle:

Vaccaro, who claimed to be a registered nurse, gave them the name and Social Security number of her cousin, DeRosa, without DeRosa's knowledge. The name came back clean in a background check.

Vaccaro was sentenced to serve between three and six years in prison for two counts of felony identity theft after pleading guilty this week. The family who employed her apparent only lost a $25 Walmart gift card and, very probably, the sense of security in their own home.

So, the question is how could this family have avoided becoming entangled with this woman?

With her history of forgery, it is possible that if the family completed the I-9 process (which many residential employers fail to do), she may have presented valid-looking identification with her picture and her family member's identity info.

With the false identity information, the criminal background check conducted by the family was useless. Assuming that was the case, the next level of defense would be to verify both her credentials, in this case a nursing license, and her previous employment history.  Employment histories are fairly easy to fabricate but a good background screening firm will have a process to try and substantiate the identity of the individual's providing references.  This is often something that private employers, particularly families hiring domestic help, are ill-equiped to accomplish.

According to press reports, it also evident that this family was not Vaccaro's first victim. Numerous people apparently had been taken advantage of by her under several different names. It seems that the local small claims court was very familiar with her, as well.

It is interesting how many individuals fail to conduct thorough background checks on employees who will be working in their homes, especially when hiring a nanny to working with children, housekeepers, home healthcare workers, or others with access to their residence.

In Vaccaro's case, the damage was limited to minor theft. However, if a thief can gain acesss to a family this easily, how much more difficult would it be for someone with a history of violence or sex offenses to get into the household?

Texas State Background Check Contractor Hires A Thief on Probation

Last month, the United States Attorney General filed federal identity theft charges against Angela Cuellar, a former employee of a Waco-based state contractor responsible for collecting the fingerprints of those seeking state background checks.  This part of the story has been widely reported.

However, Imperative Information Group conducted our own research on Ms. Cuellar and the results are startling.

Apparently, her former employer failed to conduct a criminal background check on her or, worse yet, chose to ignore the results of the background check. That bad hiring decision resulted in the identity theft scandal unveiled in last month's indictment, according to the federal indictment.

Integrated Biometrics Technology (IBT) operates a fingerprint collection site for L-1 ID Solutions, the company to which the State of Texas sole-sourced their Live Scan fingerprinting collection network. IBT collects fingerprints of teachers and others who must receive fingerprints as part of the licensing, certification, or employment processes of Texas state agencies.

According to the indictment, Cuellar worked for IBT from March 10, 2008 until July, 27, 2008. What isn't reflected in the indictment or in any of the press coverage I've found to date is that Cuellar was on probation for theft when she was hired by IBT, having plead guilty to theft charges the previous November. 

The federal indictment is interesting reading. During the short time that she worked for IBT, Cuellar allegedly stole "thousands" of applications for fingerprint background checks, each containing the applicant's "name, address, date of birth, social security number, driver license information, and other identifying information." Cuellar allegedly "used, gave away, or traded victims' information so that members of the conspiracy could fraudulently obtain credit cards, goods, and services in victims' names."

The "members of the conspiracy caused credit cards and merchandise to be shipped or mailed to various addresses in the Waco area in victims' names." According to the indictment, Cuellar and her friends opened JC Penny's cards, bought Dell computers, and even opened a Green Mountain Energy electricity account at the residence where some of the group was staying.

Several law enforcement agencies are still trying to identify additional victims. The McLennan County Sherrif's Office has created a webpage and hotline for "Reporting for L-1 ID Solutions Security Breach" in order to aid victims of this easily-preventable data breach.

Sheez. Did I mention that before IBT ever gave Cuellar access to these poor individuals' identity information, she had already plead guilty and was serving probation for theft on a case out of Waco?

It isn't clear whether IBT simply failed to conduct a background check on Cuellar, ran an inadequate background check (perhaps only relying on the incomplete state or "national" criminal records databases available online), or ran a background check that included their local county's records and chose to ignore the resulting records.

That the State of Texas' background check vendor may have failed to conduct the most basic background check on a potential employee is blindingly ironic. It is no doubt causing blinding headaches for Cuellar's victims.

By the way, Cuellar was later charged with theft by check in another case, which was dismissed in August of last year after Cuellar presented the DA's office with...

wait for it...

"forgery affidavits on the checks."

Despite arrest record, Cavaliers offer job to homeless man with golden radio voice - KansasCity.com

A homeless man from Columbus whose golden voice captured America's hearts overnight and got him a full-time job offer from the Cavaliers has a lengthy felony rap sheet.

Ted Williams, 53, has been in and out of the court system for the past 20 years on charges ranging from theft and drug possession to escape and robbery. His most recent arrest was May 14, 2010, on misdemeanor theft charges.

Upon seeing Williams' tragic story in a video produced by the Columbus Dispatch, the Cavaliers immediately offered him a full-time job doing commercials and voice-over work during an interview with a Columbus radio station Wednesday morning.

via www.kansascity.com

This is a great story... if everything works out as hoped.

It would seem that the Cavs have little to lose.

Being an announcer is a low-risk, low-access position. There's not a lot of opportunity for theft or other significant damage to the Cavs' reputation. I'm sure their security folks are putting proper controls in place to guard against any potential problems.

If Mr. Williams' history of criminal behavior proves predictive of his future behavior and he stumbles significantly in the coming days, the Cavs can safely say that this well-meaning social experiment didn't work. They'll get credit and publicity for trying to improve the life of an apparently gifted but broken individual.

And, of course, if it does work out, they get a great announcer and ongoing positive publicity.

Either way, at least LeBron James wasn't mentioned in this article. That's good news for the Cavs.

Best of luck, Mr. Williams!

A Reminder That Dumb Questions Don't Make You Look Clever

Glassdoor.com recently published their "Top 25 Oddball Interview Questions of 2010."

Glassdoor is kind of like Imperative's evil-brother-from-another-mother. They help job seekers get the "real dirt" on companies with whom they are applying. Of course, unlike Imperative, the information isn't really verified for accuracy - sort of like buying an "instant criminal background check."

In the mid-90's I was asked during an interview which character on the TV series ER I was most like. I suggested Dr. Benton (played by Eric La Salle) was the character with whom I most identified. The interviewer paused and then replied "But you're not black." Gee, thanks for noticing.

I've often cringed when an acquaintance would share a catch-you-off-guard interview question that they thought gave them great insight into the soul of the applicant. First, I don't think you want to get too deep into the applicant's soul - especially if you're still carrying around baggage from the playground in third grade.

When I've asked these clever folks what their answer to the question would be, they either give me an equally oddball answer as though it was obvious or dodge my question by claiming that they just want to see how the applicant would go about formulating a solution.

I often suspect that these questions are meant more to impress or intimidate the applicant rather than encourage a two-way conversation about whether the applicant and the company are a good fit.

The bottom line is that an interviewer's time is better spent planning a good behavioral interview and perhaps scheduling a validated test that are geared to measure the applicant's ability to do the job and work within the company's culture.

Looking over the glassdoor.com list, I did know the answer to one question (allegedly asked at Google):

Question: “How many basketball[s] can you fit in this room”

Answer: A roomful.

I've been getting my ducks in a row

It has been six months since last I blogged about anything HR-wise. Believe me, it isn't for a lack of opinions (my wife will affirm that) or deep thoughts. However, there are some changes that we've been planning for the website and blog that keep getting pushed down on the priority list and I didn't want to keep creating new content until... well, you know.

Earlier this week, my friend and trusted advisor, Brad Smith, sent me an email that hit home:

We're surrounded by people who seem to spend a whole lot of time getting their ducks in a row, waiting for just the right moment...

A great many organizations are great planners yet marginal (at best) doers.  Getting your ducks in a row is a fine thing to do. The key is getting them to fly in the right direction.

Brad is an insightful guy (or at least whoever he steals this stuff from is). He's an HR pro who helps professionals identify, plan, and take their next career step. There's no one better.

This short email from Brad is typical of the drive-by wisdom he shares with his email contacts from time to time. And this one hit my inbox as I was putting off thinking about blogging and developing new website content.

There have been all kinds of anecdotal stories about the risks of using cheap background checks that I've wanted to share. Also, the EEOC and several states are really beginning to scrutinize how employers are using background checks - some states have passed legislation and the EEOC has taken a few employers to court. Because of my HR background, my opinions on these issues differ somewhat from many of my industry peers and it may be worthwhile to share some of them. (The short version: The sky isn't falling unless you are bringing it down on yourself.)

Also, I know a lot of really smart folks like Brad and Terri Swain, who are constantly sharing their insights on a variety of HR topics. I owe it to my clients and friends to pass on their wisdom.

So, watch this space for new content. The cosmetics will change when I get around to it but, in the meantime, I'll be writing again.

How Reliable is an FBI Background Check?

Television crime shows like CSI give the impression that the federal government has a comprehensive database of all (or even just the most serious) criminal convictions in the US. With just a few keystrokes, POOF!, an individual's entire criminal record appears along with an 8x10 color photo, their family details, where they work, their pets' names, and their shoe size. The truth is far different. (Also, we have regular flourescent lighting in our office, not that pallor-inducing blue light they always have on crime-dramas!)

Keep Tennessee Flood Victims in Your Thoughts This Week (Updated)

Update: Our friends in Nashville sent this photo from the Middle Tennessee flood. Click to expand.

We received the following message from one of our court house researchers in Tennessee this morning. I'm glad to know that they have come through the flooding relatively unscathed but know that many folks in that area have not been so fortunate.

This weekend, Middle Tennessee experienced the worst flooding in recorded history. Due to the breach of several rivers and waterways, roads are closed all over the region. Buildings and homes are flooded. Our offices experienced mild flooding but we are thankful that we were able to gain control of the water situation and did not lose much.

We are committed to providing the highest quality service to you, but we ask that you be patient with us during the next week while our state recovers from this unprecedented event. There are still many roads closed and buildings flooded, some of them may be the County Offices that we access to perform our research.

We will make every effort to keep you apprised where situations related to the flooding will affect your search results, and will do everything within our power to minimize any inconvenience to you. Thank you for your patience.

I'm glad to work with professionals who amid all of the headaches and heartbreak associated with this disaster take the time to give us an update of what's going on. At the same time, our thoughts and prayers are with them and their neighbors as they put things back in order.

Identity Thief's Records Attributed to His Victim

Bloomberg Business Week has a story this week about a Wisconsin man who is suing the state for misattributing criminal records to him when employers and others do a state criminal records check.

It turns out that the records belong to a person with a different name and date of birth who used the man's name during an arrest, which resulted in the man's name being included as an alias on the offender's criminal record. When a background screening firm requests records from the state in conducting a background check, the state provides the offender's records.

I can see why the state would report the record. They receive limited information from requesters and, if the requesters know what they are doing, they should be able to confirm or eliminate the record before reporting it to an employer.

Employers don't typically have the resources to confirm or eliminate these sorts of records themselves, which is yet another reason that most companies shouldn't do background checks in-house.

If an employment background screening firm is reporting the record directly from Wisconsin's report (which isn't clear in the story but is fairly likely), then there is an even bigger problem. Any decent background screening company would conduct enough additional research to verify whether the record really is associated with the subject of a report before reporting it. In fact, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act requires it.

It should never be the responsibility of the job seeker to clear up these sorts of issues. They should be taken care of them long before the employer ever becomes aware of a potential problem.

Should Courts Publish Your Date of Birth Over the Internet?

There has been a lot of background screening industry buzz around the proposed changes to Missouri Court Operating Rule 2, much of it in overreaction to the proposed changes. 

In essence, the proposed changes will remove the full date of birth from indices published over the internet. This is obviously a reaction to concerns about identity theft. Whether it is a valid concern or not, policy makers have to respond to the public’s concern about rhetorical what-if situations. And they assume, probably correctly, that this small redaction will keep the issue of court records and personal identifiers off the public’s radar screen. All the media stories I’ve seen that last few years voicing a concern about court records and identity theft have dealt with records published on the internet.

Remember, too, that this rule applies to both civil and criminal cases. Simply being a defendant in a minor criminal matter or party to a civil case certainly shouldn't cause your date of birth or other personal identifiers to be put on the internet by the court so that Google and other search engines can pick them up.

 

To clarify what I’ve seen in several industry blogs and email postings, the proposed rule WOULD NOT remove the full date of birth from public access in the courthouse. Date of birth is critical in conducting criminal research so that we don't report a criminal history to a prospective employer based simply on a matching name. (No one named Jose Garcia or John Smith would ever get a job.)

 

Almost all of the information I've seen coming from the background screening industry about this rule fails to recognize the distinction between personal identifiers on the internet and those in the court house file. This may be an oversight on the part of those who are issuing the calls to action or it may be reflective of the fact that many data brokers in our industry prefer not to use researchers who go into the courthouse to search for records, relying instead on "screen scraping technology" to automatically read webpages of court records on the internet. (Imperative always prefers to work with local researchers who are experts in the nuances of their local courthouse records and we never use screen scrapers.)

This proposed change will remove street address of criminal defendants and civil case parties from public access in the court house.  It also removes SSNs, DL numbers, and other identifiers commonly used as confirming identifiers from public access. This change would cause problems where a background screening company is looking for a third identifier before associating a criminal history to an individual with a common name. It is not uncommon to find two different people with the same or very similar names and date of birth but they'll never have the same SSN, drivers license number, or (except in the most odd of households) the same street address.

In my letter to the Office of State Courts Administrator (included below), I endorsed the changes regarding internet indices if revisions to the proposal regarding courthouse access to identifiers are made. I suggested that the street address not be redacted and that clerks be required to verify whether other identifiers on file (though not publicly available) match those provided by a requester. This way, upon finding a name and DOB match, the researcher in the courthouse could tell the clerk the SSN or license number of the subject they are researching and the clerk would have to verify if it matches the information on file for a given defendant. I believe this is a fair compromise that effectively prevents identity theft while enabling researchers to verify that a case truly belongs to a particular applicant.

 

I believe it is important that the background screening industry continue to advocate on behalf of our client's interest in receiving reliable and current information on prospective employees. I believe we do that best when we avoid the Chicken Little approach ("the sky is falling") and work to understand the concerns of regulators and legislators and work with them to find solutions that are in the best interest of everyone.

I'm including my letter to the court's legal counsel below. To quote Pascal, "This letter is long because I didn't have time to write a short one."

April 23, 2010

Catherine Zacharias
OSCA Legal Counsel
Office of State Courts Administrator
P.O. Box 104480
Jefferson City, MO 65110

Via facsimile (573) 522-6152

RE: Proposed changes to Missouri Court Operating Rule 2

Dear Ms. Zacharias:

I learned this morning of the proposed changes to Missouri’s Court Operating Rule 2. I beg your indulgence in submitting these brief comments at the twelfth hour.

I am president of Imperative Information Group, a Texas-based business due diligence and background investigations firm based in Fort Worth, Texas. I am a past director of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners and a founding member of Concerned CRAs, a group of background screening firms seeking to raise awareness of consumer protection issues.

Though I have not been a party to the discussions surrounding the proposed changes, I infer that the OSCA’s intent in limiting access to personal identifiers in court records is to lessen the likelihood of identity theft from those records. I do not know whether there are any documented instances of identity theft resulting from court records, though it is certainly rare if it happens at all. However, I understand and share a concern over the growing public perception that one can find “anything and everything” out about an individual over the internet.

Generally, it seems that the proposed changes set standards for two kinds of records access:

· The proposed changes to Rule 2.04 (b) seek to redact the month and day of parties’ dates of birth and their street addresses from internet record indices.

· The proposed changes to Rule 2.05 (c) seek to limit access to a variety of personal information items, including social security numbers, motor vehicle operator license numbers, parties’ street addresses, and state ID numbers.  Though not stated specifically, I believe the net effect of this rule would be to limit access to this information in the courthouse because the changes to Rule 2.04 (b) already significantly limit the information available on the internet.

While professional identity thieves typically seek to gain identity information in large quantities and it is unlikely that they will spend their effort culling through courts’ internet sites seeking identity information, I agree that there is some risk of this occurring. I also believe that the public perception of excessive personally identifiable information being made available over the internet by the courts should be taken into account. Therefore, I support the changes sought to Rule 2.04 (b) so long as more complete information is available in the court clerks’ office.

The less severe restrictions in Rule 2.05 (c) seem to recognize the “casual barrier” to accessing court records in the court clerk’s office.  For instance, there is no date of birth redaction in the proposed change.

However, the prohibition of the release of street address and other personal information will cause significant problems for employers, investors, lenders, title companies, and others who rely on the accuracy of the courts’ records. Ultimately, it may increase the workload of court personnel due to constant inquiries by the users of this information and members of the public who are injured by the misattribution of this information.

To understand the impact of the proposed changes to Rule 2.05 (c), it may be helpful to explain how good due diligence and employment screening firms operate to protect their clients’ interests while at the same time seeking to ensure that members of the public are not unfairly injured by the misattribution of public records to which they are not a party.

Under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, consumer reporting agencies (a term that includes employment screening firms) have a responsibility to ensure that the information reported to a client really pertains to the individual about whom the report is being made.

When conducting criminal court research, the most commonly used identifiers are name and date of birth. However, when a common name such as John Smith is searched, there is the possibility that there are two individuals with the same name and date of birth and we may attribute the record to the wrong individual.

In those cases, our first hope is that the court clerk will verify whether the social security number we have for the individual we are researching matches that of the defendant. This does not mean that the social security number should be made available on the public index, only that the court clerk should be willing to indicate whether an SSN is reflected in the file and, if so, if it matches the SSN for the subject of our report. Of course, neither law enforcement agencies nor the courts have the ability to verify that an SSN truly belongs to an individual and they must rely on the information provided by a defendant, so a response that a SSN does not match is not necessarily an indicator that the record is not associated with the subject of our report.

Failing to strongly associate a case with our subject based on SSN, we turn to the defendant’s address. We have proprietary database tools that we can use to identify the addresses previously associated with the subject of our report. We can also take an address from a court file and combine it with a defendant’s name and date of birth and determine if that address has been associated with another individual with the same name and date of birth but a different SSN.

If a court file or court clerk can verify a drivers license number or other state identification number, that is also often a key piece of information that can be used to associated a particular case with an individual.

We use similar processes when conducting civil litigation research in support of due diligence investigations into investment targets, potential business partners or vendors, or litigation parties. Address information is even more important when conducting civil litigation research because dates of birth are often not found in the court files and addresses are often the only additional identifier available.

In order to ensure that court records are not misattributed to the wrong individual, I suggest the following revisions to the proposed 2.05 (c):

(c)Any public inquiries specifically requesting personal information. Except as provided by this Court Operating Rule 2.05(a) for case records, court personnel shall not release personal information including, but not limited to:

· Social security numbers;

· Motor vehicle operator license numbers;

· Victim information including name, address, and other contact information;

· Informant information including name, address, and other contact information;

· A party’s street address, except the city, state, and zip code, which may be released;

· Witness information including name, address, and other contact information;

· State identification numbers; and

· Financial institution account numbers, credit card numbers, PINs or passwords used to secure accounts.

Notwithstanding the prohibition above, when requested court personnel shall verify whether personal information provided by a public inquirer matches the personal information in the court’s record.

I believe that this simple revision will require very little effort to court staff while limiting the already negligible risk of identity theft from court records and helping ensure the accuracy of the information being reported from the court’s records.

Finally, I believe there may be an error in the final paragraph of Rule 2.04 (b). I expect that “aware” was intended to read “unaware.”  It seems that the intent of the paragraph is to avoid tipping of a defendant that a warrant has been filed.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, upon initial filing of a criminal case where a warrant is requested, if the defendant is aware unaware of the warrant issuance, and there is a high risk of physical injury to officers or others or of flight of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney may request the courts temporarily remove the case from Internet access. Such removal will be for a period of five calendar days from the case filing.

I apologize for the length of this letter and I hope that it is helpful as you consider the impact of these proposed changes.

Sincerely,

Mike Coffey
President
Imperative Information Group