[Foundation-l] Foundation Discretion Regarding Personnel

[Anthony]

On Dec 15, 2007 12:07 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>
> >  It took me about 10 minutes to search the Pinellas County court
> > records and find the two DUIs and the fugitive warrant from Virginia,
> > and that's without using her maiden name.  That Jimbo says he was
> > "stunned" when he read it suggests you didn't even know about that.
>
> There's plenty that you apparently don't know about. For example, did
> you know that a company is legally liable if it mishandles a criminal
> background check, and that this is why this service is now contracted
> to specialized services?
>
That question is far too vague to answer.  Yes, I'm aware that certain
mishandling of criminal background check's can result in legal
liability.  I'm not aware of any legal liability which can be had for
checking the county court records on someone who's already left the
company, in order to not get blindsided by a newspaper story about
that former employee.

> You seem to be advising me to act in ways that make the Foundation
> more likely to be legally vulnerable.  I'm sorry, but I must politely
> refuse.
>
If you took what I said as advise of any type, let alone advise to
break the law, then you're horribly mistaken.

[snip]

> Thomas, I'm beginning to think you've gone a little nuts. You've
> confused two different things:
>
> (1) a general background check on a WMF employee *before* the Register
> story was published, and
>
> (2) a specific check of the Register's references *after* the story
> was published, which can be done a lot quicker.
>
Thomas and I were both clearly talking about the period of time
between the interview and the publishing of the story.