Take a Course in Defensive Hiring

Defensive driving instructors will tell you that 60% of all serious traffic accidents are avoidable. Why? Although we may not have driven recklessly ourselves, we may have failed to recognize the signs of impending hazard and to take evasive action.

Similarly, we can avoid the anguish and civil liability associated with hiring violent or dishonest offenders by remaining alert to the signals of applicant fraud and by following preventive screening methods. Today, preventive screening methods are even more important due to the threat of terrorism and the risk of injury from copycat criminals.

Lesson 1: Application Omissions

Minor omissions on a candidate’s employment application may be innocent. But, if an employment application leaves you with an incomplete picture of a candidate’s background, this may be just what the applicant intended to do. Applicants with prior histories of violent or dishonest behavior will not go out of their way to provide you with the information you need to contact those who may prevent them from obtaining employment.

Take a few minutes to review each employment application for completeness while the applicant is still there. If there are any omissions, have the applicant provide the information on the spot. Later, during the employment interview, check for inconsistencies between the written application and the candidate’s verbal account of their work history. Dishonest applicants may have difficulty recalling the fabrications they made. A pattern of omissions in the following areas of the employment application may signal trouble: the criminal conviction question; reasons for leaving previous employers; addresses and telephone numbers of former employers; dates of employment; and, names of former immediate supervisors.

Lesson 2: Verify Previous Employment

Even if you are certain that the previous employer will verify nothing other than dates of employment, it is important to make the call. In most cases, dates of employment are all that you will need to detect applicant dishonesty. Even though the applicant may have accurately described their job title, duties and salary, dates of employment may have been manipulated in order to obscure other employment.

Lesson 3: Avoid Fraudulent Personnel Reference Schemes

Fraudulent personnel reference schemes are common but may be tricky to detect. For a fee, operators of these lucrative scams provide the applicant with a telephone number to use as a business reference on his/her application. These con artists will generally answer the phone by saying “personnel” or “may I help you” – very common responses. The numbers will typically be direct, with no company operator or switchboard involved, and will be answered promptly. These professionals won’t provide you with information, but will be happy to verify information you provide to them from the employment application.

Never tell the person who answers the phone the name of the company you believed you were calling. Do not say, for example, “is this the ABC Company”. Instead, say, “I’m sorry, what company have I reached”. If you have reached a scam operator, the response you will likely hear is “click”. Another quick way to detect a reference scam is to give false information from the application to see if he/she verifies it.

Lesson 4: Beware of Uncheckable References

Dishonest applicants may list one or more uncheckable sources as references on the employment application. These sources often take the form of small independently owned establishments that “went out of business”, or whose “owner retired”, or “passed away”. Dishonest applicants may list uncheckable references on an application to avoid revealing a real job from which they were fired, or to obscure jail time. Company names may be fabricated altogether, or may have operated at one time. Be cautious, and take extra care to look into the alleged business.

Lesson 5: Examine I-9 Documents Carefully

Falsified documents may be difficult to detect. Producing counterfeit documents and stealing legitimate documents for alteration is big business. Following are some suggestions for processing I-9 employment documentation:

· Know and follow INS regulations for verifying employment eligibility. Legal requirements and sample documents may be downloaded through the INS Web-site at http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/. If you need further support call your local INS office or the INS National Customer Service Center at 202-514-2000

· Determine whether the information on the document pertains to the individual presenting the document (if the person appears to be 18 and the identification says 40, there is a problem; if a man presents the document with a woman’s picture, there is also a problem). Look for discrepancies between the information depicted on the documents and the information provided on the employment application.

· Look for alterations as evidenced by erasures, photograph substitutions, etc. Official documents are never altered, they are replaced.

· Check to be sure the document is squarely cut.

· Determine that the printing and engraving is parallel with the edges of the document in addition to being sharp, clear, and unbroken.

· Verify Social Security Number information through the Social Security Administration after the employee has begun work. If the name and date of birth provided by the employee does not match the Social Security Administration records, a problem most likely exists.

Lesson 6: Conduct A Due-diligence Criminal Background Check

Criminal history checks are a critical part of the employment process. Countless civil suits are filed each day alleging negligence in the hiring process. A significant portion of these suits stem from faulty criminal background check procedures. Consider the irreparable harm that may occur to a child who comes into contact with an employee who has a serious criminal offense in their past. To be sure your record check process is effective and able to withstand legal scrutiny, consider the following:

· Conduct criminal background checks on every person that you hire, not just on some. Screen volunteers the same way that you screen employees who appear on your payroll.

· Be certain that outside contractors and vendors use due-diligence screening methods to check the backgrounds of their employees who have contact with children and who make frequent campus visits. Adopt a policy that prohibits vendors and contractors from supplying workers that have convictions for violent or sexual offenses. Communicate this policy to your outside vendors and contractors.

· Conduct criminal record checks in all places the applicant has lived and worked, including out of state venues. To help verify the information the applicant has provided and to determine where criminal record checks must be done, have your background screening service provider run a “social security number trace”. This is the best way to detect application falsification and to confirm the correct venues to check.

· Consider using real courthouse searches rather than “database” searches. Courthouse searches provide the most accurate information because you are searching the original record source. Some private companies purchase public record information from counties and states for re-sale to employers and may only update periodically. These types of searches may provide the employer with incomplete record information, or may not detect the record at all. Some state governments have “repositories” that contain criminal records obtained from direct on-line connections with counties, or that have stringent reporting guidelines. Repositories of this nature are an acceptable source of employment screening information. Other states offer searches through databases that do not require local governments to report upward, or that have loose guidelines in place to govern the reporting process. These are not true “repositories” and should not be relied upon as a sole source for employment screening information.

· Adopt a policy that requires current employees to report any criminal conviction they may receive.


The employment screening process is an important part of your student safety program. It touches every part of your operation, including the quality of the education you provide and your district’s public image. To be sure your districts screening procedures are sound, have a consultant experienced in educational security services assess them for you. Most will not charge for this type of review .


Bill Dolphin is a veteran security consultant with Texas based, Asset Control Inc., and co-developer of ChooseToCare.com, an innovative Web-based student / faculty tip-line program. Please address questions or comments about this article to bill@assetcontrol.net

Holiday Safety Tips from Asset Control & ChooseToCare

With the holiday season is upon us, we may find ourselves preoccupied with holiday planning and shopping. Unfortunately, the safety precautions we normally follow are often forgotten as we enjoy the season's festivities. Feel free to print these tips out and to distribute them to your family and friends. You may even choose to hold a brief family meeting on holiday safety. ChooseToCare wants this holiday season to be SAFE for all. So we remind you to follow these practical safety tips so that your holiday will truly be an enjoyable one!

While Holiday Shopping

1) While out, turn on lights and a radio or TV so it looks like someone's home. Be extra cautious about locking doors and windows when you leave even if it's just for a few minutes.

2) Don't display gifts where they can be seen from outside.

3) Be aware of your surroundings at all times. Criminals often prey on people who are or who appear to be distracted.

4) Carry your handbag close to your body, preferably tucked under your arm. Do not leave it unsecured in your shopping cart or in a shopping bag. Avoid carrying it simply by the handle or strap.

5) Place all packages and purchases in the trunk of your car. Do not leave them visible on the front or rear seat.

6) Do not leave your purchases unguarded while in the store or mall. Keep them close and visible to you.

7) Don't forget to bring your cell phone with you if you have one. They are a terrific safety tool, especially for the teens when they are off to the mall. You will want to have a quick way to contact them and to determine their location.

8) Go to the mall with friends if possible. Numbers often deter thieves or assailants, especially when you are walking to your car.

9) Park under or near lighting, if possible. Especially if you know you will be returning to your car after dark.

10) Have your car keys in your hand and ready. Be alert for anyone following you or lingering nearby. If you become uncomfortable or suspicious, return to the mall or walk to where there are others around. Ask for a mall security escort to your vehicle.

11) Have your house keys ready and in your hand when returning home.

12) Avoid carrying your wallet in your back pocket. This is an invitation for pick-pockets. Carry your wallet in your front or breast pocket.

13) Record your credit card numbers along with the toll-free number for each card. This will help if it becomes necessary to report them stolen.


Holiday Safety at Home & for Children

1) Take this opportunity to test your smoke detectors and/or to change your batteries. If you have no smoke detectors purchase some and install them for the holidays. If you cannot afford smoke detectors, consider contacting your local fire department. Many departments provide detectors free of charge for those who cannot afford to purchase them.

2) Be sure to extinguish holiday candles before going to bed.

3) Have a working fire extinguisher available in the house. Multi-purpose rated extinguishers are best for household use.

4) Check holiday lights and extension cords for fraying or bare wires. Replace those that are damaged.

5) Keep your tree watered so that the needles stay moist and green. Water additives are available that will assist in keeping your tree fresh. Never use real candles on trees, even on artificial trees.

6) Do not run extension cords or other wires under carpets. Avoid overloading electrical outlets.

7) Unplug inside holiday lighting when away from home or when pets and small children will be nearby and unsupervised. Pets and small children may chew wires which poses a risk for electrocution.

8) Follow recommended age ranges on toy packages. The ages listed are there for safety reasons, not to indicate whether a toy is developmentally appropriate for the child. Children under age 3 can choke on small parts contained in toys or games and balls that are 1 ¾ inch in diameter or less.

Does Homeland Security have eyes for you?

Just as Homeland Security spends endless days and nights listening to "chatter" by those who might do us harm, Asset Control stays up all night listening to Department of Homeland Security "chatter" to see just what they have in mind for employers in the battle against illegal immigration. Recently, we've picked up some chatter that might be of specific interest to you if you haven't been diligent in verifying the identity of new or existing employees!

While employers may have gotten away with ignoring the Social Security Administration's "no match" letters in the past, a new partnership between the Department of Homeland Security and the S.S.A. may put a damper on this approach. These are letters sent to employers with more than 10 workers, informing them that a particular employee's name does not match the SSN used. They are sent when the no matches for an employer is .5% or more of the company's total workforce. Sources inside the Bush administration now indicate that the President is planning new enforcement initiatives, even in the absence of new enforcement legislation. According to Russ Knocke, the spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, " We are tough and we are going to be even tougher." "There are not going to be any more excuses for employers, and there will be serious consequences for those that choose to blatantly disregard the law."

New enforcement guidelines are expected to give employers a fixed period of time to investigate and resolve any discrepancies between the identification provided by workers and records held by the Social Security Administration. Chatter has it that employers will have 90 days to resolve the discrepancy, fix the problem, or fire the employee. Employers that ignore the letters will risk fines up to $10,000 for each illegal worker. According to the Social Security Administration, over 140,000 no match letters, covering more than eight million workers, will be sent to employers this year.

But the Fed has threatened aggressive enforcement of immigration law in the past. In reality, the threats translated into token arrests, or photo opportunities, intended to do nothing more than give the perception that an enforcement program exited. What has changed? First, the Bush administration is being pressured by the conservative base to do something, anything, in the war against illegal immigration. One measure, to enforce existing law, can be taken without new legislation. Clearly, this has been a battle cry heard from both Republican and Democrat conservatives since the attack on 9/11. But the Fed must pick its battles, and the possibility of a great photo op is still a significant drawing card. This means that the day of the raid on wooden pallet manufacturing plants is probably past.

On August 2, just one day after the tragic I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota, Jose S. Gonzalez was arrested at his office in Greenville, Mississippi. Gonzalez, owner of Tarrasco Steel, was a subcontractor who provided re-bar and installation services to major highway bridge construction projects. On March 29, 2007, ICE agents conducted worksite enforcement actions at the Greenville-Arkansas Highway 82 bridge in Greenville Mississippi; the Huey P. Long bridge in New Orleans, Louisiana; the US 90 bridge in Biloxi, Mississippi; the I-40 seismic retro-fit in Memphis, Tennessee, and the LA-1 bridge in Leeville, LA. These structures are all part of our nation's critical infrastructure and are closely scrutinized when it comes to security matters. During the March raid, several employees were arrested for using bogus Social Security Numbers. The investigation also revealed that the employees did not have proper welding certifications.

Did the Fed choose the timing of the arrest in light of the bridge collapse the previous day? Hard to say. It may have been the sensible action under the circumstances, particularly, from a public relations perspective. Note, that the investigation and subsequent enforcement action at bridges in Louisiana began very early in the year. So, it appears that the Fed was ahead of the curve in this particular case. Protecting infrastructure is a credible objective. Regardless, if what we have observed is part of an overall strategy by Homeland Security, we should expect to see more enforcement actions targeting aspects of our infrastructure; particularly, actions involving contractors receiving federal or state revenue.

So, where should we expect to see more enforcement efforts? If your company provides services in support of bridges, dams, roadways airports, hazardous waste, our food supply, the movement of cargo over land or water, water or water treatment, power generation, schools, security, or liquid or solid waste, do not take the "no match" letters lightly as many employers have in the past. And, expect that state and local authorities will partner with federal agencies to go after employers who hire skilled workers who may have bogus licenses or certificates.

Asset Control can assist employers in their efforts to hire legal workers. To find out how, call our offices at 940-891-1919. Don't let the Fed have a photo opportunity at your expense.

Soft Targets, Hard Lessons - Why terrorists value your school as a target and what you can do!

Shortly after 9/11 I was asked by the Director of the Texas School Safety Center, a legislated branch of the Texas governor’s office to develop a strategy for deterring potential terrorist attacks in Texas public schools. My reputation for developing preventive programs was known. At the time, the law enforcement community had concluded, for whatever reason, that little could be done to deter or prevent a terrorist attack on schools. As a result, their focus would be wholly reactive in nature. This was not altogether acceptable to the TXSSC. Subsequently, Asset Control signed a consulting agreement to develop steps that any school district could take to mitigate their attractiveness to terrorists seeking a soft target. I undertook the project understanding that having a well developed and coordinated response plan was critical in the event of a school attack, but knowing that basic steps could be taken to lessen the likelihood that a particular school might be targeted. The result: in 2002 the “Proactive Guide for the Prevention of Terrorism in Public Schools” was distributed to all Texas public schools. Subsequently, the “Guide” was adopted by several school districts and suport service organizations nationwide.

Unfortunately, the recent trend on the part of some law enforcement and many security consultants has been to minimize the likelihood that a school(s) in the US may be subject to attack by terrorists. In fact, those who attempt to keep the idea of a potential terror attack at school alive in the minds of school administrators and security personnel have been criticized as trying to “hype” the threat to increase their own value. The fact of the matter is that the thought of our children being targeted in a place where they should be most safe is so frightening that is has been rendered unmentionable, if not unthinkable. Some even speculate that terrorists fear that an attack on a U.S. school(s) would cause a reverse affect. That is to say, that the fear and panic created by such an attack would motivate the American people (rather than de-motivate) to exterminate radical Islamic extremists throughout the world.

Yet, we have no evidence that the terrorist fears that the killing of children would have any affect beyond their stated goal(s). In fact there is evidence to the contrary. Video tapes have been found in Afghanistan showing al-Qaeda terrorists training to take over schools. Subsequently, al-Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith declared al-Qaeda's "right" to kill 2 million American children in retaliation for Muslim civilian deaths in the war on terror. Recently, CNN reported that local law enforcement agencies received a “routine” FBI and Homeland Security Department advisory relating to “Foreigners under recent investigation include ‘some with ties to extremist groups’ who have been able to purchase (school) buses and acquire licenses.”

But the greatest evidence to date is the horrific Belsan school massacre in Russia during which 700 people were wounded and 338 killed, including 172 students. This terrorist attack was perpetrated by Muslim extremists with definite historical links to al-Qaeda. Whether al-Qaeda assisted in the planning of this particular attack is under investigation. It was noted that several Arabs were among the terrorists killed by Russian Special Forces during the massacre.

Be Proactive: The Awareness / Prevention Checklist

The Awareness/Prevention checklist highlights areas of school operations, maintenance, security, and personnel that may pose opportunities for risk reduction. Use this checklist as a proactive tool to generate awareness over the potential for terrorist acts, at a time when it is needed most.

The recommendations contained in this checklist are not intended to represent or to replace a comprehensive school security program. Such a program would include much more. Many of the procedures included in the checklist are routine in districts with full-time security operations. Whether your school district has full-time security coverage, or has minimal security resources, these recommendations may be used as a focal point around which to build an appropriately renewed sense of awareness. The recommendations have been constructed in several “modules” each of which depicts the basic recommendation, the audit point or “question” to be addressed for each recommendation and the departments that would potentially be involved in the addressing the recommendation.

Module 1: Review Employment Screening Policy & Procedure

Steps:

• Does your screening process include volunteers, cafeteria workers, mechanics, bus drivers, and security, in addition to educational staff?
• Does your procedure allow for actual courthouse searches, rather than database searches, which are typically not accurate?
• Do your searchers do Social Security Number traces to identify any out-of-state venues that should be checked?
• Do your outside contractors use due-diligence screening procedures to check the backgrounds of their workers who regularly visit your school?

Departments Involved:

• Security
• Human Resources

Module 2: Review the physical security of bus yards and garages; review transportation security in general.

Steps:

• Are vehicle garages alarmed, and are the alarms in working order?
• Are fenced-in areas gated, locked, and adequately illuminated at night?
• Do drivers do “pilot inspections” of their vehicles before placing them into service each day? Is this done again after each time the vehicle has been left unattended?
• Are bus drivers equipped with two-way radios or cell phones?
• Are drivers trained to be aware of and to report suspicious vehicles that appear to be following their busses during their routes?
• Do drivers keep a student roster for each bus route, to include student name, address, primary and secondary emergency contact numbers, and medical authorization information?

Departments Involved:

• Security
• Contract or proprietary bus operators
• Health Services

Module 3: a) Review the adequacy of physical security in and around campus buildings; b) Review placement of security cameras and review monitoring practices

Steps:

• Review the adequacy of physical security in and around campus buildings
• Review placement of security cameras and review monitoring practices
• Are alarm systems working and have they been tested? This should include main campus buildings as well as maintenance and storage facilities.
• Are keys to campus and administration buildings adequately controlled?
• Are alarm pass codes changed when an employee leaves the school district?
• Make sure pass codes are not shared.
• Is exterior lighting working and is illumination adequate?
• Is interior lighting (night lighting) working and is illumination adequate?
• If security cameras are used, coverage should include main doors and building exteriors, as well as interior locations.
• Make sure recording equipment is in working order and that a reasonable archive is maintained.
• If cameras are not live monitored, make sure that a periodic or spot review of critical areas takes place.
• Encourage students and staff to report suspicious activity quickly, so that video archives can be reviewed for evidence.

Departments Involved:

• Security
• Maintenance
• H.R.
• Operations

Module 4: Review access control procedures and heighten employee awareness

• Are doors that should remain locked from the outside during the day kept locked, and are these doors checked periodically to make sure they are secure? Train all employees to check these doors but consider assigning someone to check them as well.
• Are staff members trained to approach and to “assist” strangers of any age who are observed in and on school property? Report those who have difficulty explaining their presence.
• Are students trained to report suspicious persons or persons who may not be authorized on campus?
• Has a visitor log and ID badge system been implemented?

Departments Involved:

• Everyone

Module 5: Train everyone to recognize and report suspicious activities on campus.

Steps:

• Are persons taking pictures or filming campus activities questioned about their authorization to do so?
• Be alert for suspicious vehicles that seem to have no apparent purpose for being on campus, or, that come, go, and then reappear again.
• Are specific individuals assigned to inspect the outside of campus buildings throughout the day, and to report unattended packages or vehicles near building perimeters?
• Have you developed a plan to handle reports of suspicious activity?
• Is everyone trained to report unattended or otherwise suspicious packages found inside campus buildings? Is this specific issue placed on routine checklists for maintenance and janitorial personnel?
• Do personnel know what to do if a suspicious package is found?
• Have you considered a policy that requires staff and students to visibly identify backpacks, book bags, briefcases and gym bags with luggage style ID tags?

Departments Involved:

• Everyone including students, janitorial, teachers, volunteers, & Student Resource Officers

Module 6: Implement a “tip-line” program that allows students, teachers, parents, staff, and other members of the school community to report issues anonymously, if they choose.

Steps:

• Do you have a zero tolerance for verbal threats of any kind?
• Do all members of the school community know that any threat, or information about a potential threat, must be reported? And, do they understand that there is no such thing as a threat intended as a joke?
• Do students and staff know that they are responsible for informing the building principal about any information or knowledge of a possible or actual terrorist threat or act?
• Have you communicated a hard stand on hoaxes intended to mimic terrorist acts?
• Do students know that these hoaxes are crimes in themselves?

Departments Involved:

• Student Services
• Students/Clubs
• PTA / PTO
• Resource Officers

Module 7: Work closely with local law enforcement, health officials, and first responders

Steps:

• Have you made local law enforcement a partner in your district’s plans?
• Are parking regulations, particularly fire zone regulations, strictly enforced?
• Does local law enforcement have copies of building blueprints, to include ventilation system, and electrical plans?
• Has local law enforcement been given the opportunity to conduct exercises on school property and on busses?
• Have you determined contact protocol with local health officials if bio-terrorism is suspected?

Departments Involved:

• Security
• Clinical Staff
• Crisis Management Team
• Local Law Enforcement
• First Responders
• SRO’s
• Local Health Officials

Module 8: Train staff on identifying and handling suspicious packages and letters.

Steps:

• Have you download and posted the FBI advisory (poster) regarding suspicious packages from http://www.fbi.gov/?
• Or, the US Postal Inspection Service poster on identifying suspicious packages from http://www.usps.gov/?
• Have you considered publicizing the availability of this information to others in the school community for personal use?
• Have you ordered ATF forms: P 3320.5; P 7550.2; and 1613.1, regarding bomb threat planning?

Departments Involved:

• Mail Room
• Secretarial
• Security
• Parents
• Students
• Janitorial

Remember, terrorists place their intended targets under surveillance prior to attack. They will study various potential targets as part of the target selection process in order to identify those with fatal weaknesses. While vigilance alone will not prevent a terrorist attack on a U.S. school, it may prevent your school from being selected for attack. Terrorists will likely select the softest amongst all of the targets considered. These may be rural schools serviced primarily by county sheriff departments or state police agencies. In other words, in places where the closest swat team or other first responders may not be just around the corner.

If you haven’t considered the possibility of a terrorist attack on a school in your district, or if your plans up to now have been solely reactive in nature, now is the time to act. Awareness is inexpensive and one of the most effective tools we have in the war on terror. However, we have to overcome the “it won’t happen here” thinking that paralyzes many Americans with an apparent reluctance to think or act. Moreover, don’t expect that the Fed, or for that matter your state will step in with a reasonable and proactive program to render your school or district a less soft target. All such efforts must come from within and must come now!

Its “buyer beware” for church background checks!

Last week I exhibited at a national conference for church administrators. As chance would have it my booth was situated only two away from a major supplier of background checks to the church community and within the context of this particular conference, a competitor. Shortly, this “competitor” recognized our company name and came over to engage us in conversation. I was taken back by what I heard and after a short time realized that we represented two totally different industries altogether. He represented the sales industry and we, the security industry. A key distinction based upon the conversation that followed next.

This competitor was a database re-seller who offered a “nationwide” solution for churches to use to screen employees and volunteers. I asked how he felt about selling database checks to churches given the problems religious organizations are facing with child safety and the like. His answer was “hey we make a ton of money on databases. All I do is sell them what they want, or, what they think they want”. When I asked what he tells his clients about the FTC/FCRA entanglements inherent in the use of database searches for employment screening and he said, “I don’t get involved in that. Once I sell them the data I’m out of it”. Through further conversation it occurred to me that this salesman was unversed in the myriad of compliance issues involving his product and probably couldn’t care less.

If I sound angry about this – well you’re right. But also disappointed at the attitude that inaccurate “nationwide” database searches were just all right for churches. Just one day after the largest church related child sexual abuse settlement in history, I am here to tell you – no they’re not! Here are some facts for church administrators to consider when selecting a background screening service provider:

• Know exactly what you are getting and where your provider is obtaining the information they provide. This is your responsibility and part of your due-diligence.
• Database searches should never be the core of a proper background check. Databases consist of information purchased from courts or from companies that purchase information form courts – and updated periodically. By their very nature they are inaccurate and litigators know this. Begin with a social security number verification and check where the employment application and the SSN verification indicate. Consider a national database search only as an additional level of defense - to “cast a wide net” so to speak. On average, databases cover only about 50% of venues nationwide so the chance is great that they don’t even cover your applicant’s place of residence or employment.
• There is no difference in a background check for a church, a school, or a business. A quality background check is a quality background check and can be delivered by any employment screening firm that is both experienced and credible. Companies that claim to be church specific in their offerings are taking advantage of a marketing tool and change the name of their company depending on the trade shows at which they are exhibiting.
• Make sure that your screening approach targets the specific types of positions you have. Be sure your contact person at the screening company has the expertise needed to assist you throughout your process and that his/her involvement doesn’t end once they take your money.
• Screen volunteers the same way you would screen employees. Courts have held that churches have the same liability with volunteers as with employees.
• By federal law, you must confirm the results you get from a database search with a real county criminal court record search before taking adverse action based upon the result. Why not do it the right way the first time by using county searches. You will increase accuracy and save money in the end.

Based upon the Fair Credit Reporting Act requirements that background check information be derived from the most accurate source(s) available, database use is riddled with peril for both the applicant and the employer. The “buyer beware” mentality of some database sellers is a terrible commentary on the industry. Your church and the people it serves cannot afford the scattergun approach to background checks the database search provides. Due-diligence in the selection of the employment screening products your church uses will help protect your constituents and limit liability.

EEOC Takes Aim at Employment Credit Reports

Recently, our government’s ability to keep secrets has been put to the test. Insider leaks to the press about confidential programs designed to make us safer are frustrating to say the least. But, there is one nasty secret that I am glad was leaked. This May, the EEOC tipped its hand on its intent to intrude on your ability to screen employees by taking a more aggressive stance against the use of credit reports in the applicant screening process. This, partially driven by EEOC’s realization that the use of credit reports to help screen applicants is at an all time high.

Where’s the beef? It lies in the fact that certain minority groups (particularly black Americans) tend to have lower credit scores than non minorities. The lower credit scores are driven by the higher rate amongst minorities of bankruptcies, collection accounts, credit defaults, and other issues that appear on a credit report - as well as the lower credit value given to certain job categories often held by minority job applicants. In other words, credit reports by their very nature have a racially disparate impact.

If you use credit reports as part of your employment screening process, here are some important things to remember:

• Use “Employment Credit Reports” to screen applicants. Employment credit reports do not show the applicant’s credit score or account numbers. They are specially designed to meet FCRA standards for the use of credit reports in employment screening.

• Avoid developing hard rules, standards, or numeric guidelines for screening out applicants based upon the information contained in the credit report (e.g. a certain number of collection accounts, or charged off accounts will automatically negate consideration). Some believe that by applying a consistent standard to all applicants that they have developed a fair policy. Not so, says the EEOC! Racially “neutral” employment policies may run afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

• Make sure that the use of the credit report is closely related (“job relatedness”) to the position applied for. For example, you may be able to show a nexus between a credit report and an Accounting Manager but not between a credit report and a Customer Service Manager. A cashier may handle each dollar that goes into your coffer but the Office Manager who handles your deposit may be more of a theft risk than the cashier. Since there is a correlation between income level and “bad” credit (and race and bad credit), you will have an impossible time justifying the use of a credit report for positions like "cashier", "clerk", "associate", "representitive", or other similar hourly paid jobs.

• Reserve credit reports for management level candidates such as: Manager, Director, Vice president, etc.; then, only for positions in which the employee has unusual power over company accounts or funds. Positions for which history shows a higher incidence of bribes, kickbacks or other forms of inappropriate influence should be considered (such as procurement; real estate; advertising; etc.).

• Document, in writing, your reason for using a credit report for a particular position. The process of reasoning through each justification will help identify positions for which credit reports should not be used.

• Be familiar with the FCRA requirements regarding the use of consumer reports. Realize that credit reports may contain inaccuracies. If you are going to deny employment based wholly or partially on the information contained in a credit report, you must provide an adverse action letter. An applicant has specific rights under the FCRA that you must be aware of and comply with.

Again, the key to using credit reports safely and effectively is to be able to justify their use by showing “job relatedness”. But be careful. The EEOC states that they have seen no study, to date, that shows a connection between credit reports and any job, at any level. Notwithstanding, during a recent meeting in May the EEOC concluded that they cannot absolutely say that there is never a link between credit any employment worthiness.

There is much to be derived from the proper use of credit reports in employment screening. Often employers can discover court ordered judgments, restitution agreements, or other actions relative to previous employers that may point to past dishonesty. By adopting a policy that allows credit reports to be considered and weighed on an individual basis and in conjunction with all other information gathered during the interview and background investigation process you will be on you way to hardening you employment screening against attack. Use the credit header report (a.k.a. Social Security Number search) in all cases in which a full employment credit report cannot be justified. As always, Asset Control will keep our clients updated on decisions and trends that impact you in your effort to hire the best employees!

Coke & Pepsi take corporate ethics to a new and refreshing level

This week, federal authorities arrested Joya Williams, an administrative assistant to a senior Coke executive, for allegedly attempting to sell Pepsi the recipes for Coke’s new soft drink. Coke and Pepsi, heretofore bitter rivals in the global soft drink market and fierce competitors for your pop dollar, rose above avarice and to set a new standard in corporate ethics. This, coming at a time when the number of corporate ethics scandals seems to be at an all-time high.

In May, Pepsi received a letter at their corporate office offering to sell them Coke’s new recipe. Pepsi responded by calling Coke executives and revealing the plot. Together, officials from the two companies called the FBI and worked with the Bureau to set up a sting operation. The sting resulted in the arrest of three individuals, including the Coke secretary, on May 23’rd. A Pepsi spokesman was quoted as saying, “we were just doing what any responsible company would do. Despite the fierce competition in this industry, it should also be fair.” Meanwhile, Coke CEO Neville Isdell stated that the incident “underscores the responsibility that we each have to be vigilant in protecting our trade secrets.”

Pepsi could have ignored the letter, leaving Coke to deal with a dishonest employee on their own. It would have been easier. But there was much more at stake here than simply a matter of corporate ethics, and executives at both companies recognized it. It might sound cynical to say that both CEO’s recognized the photo op presented in the situation although there might be some truth to it. In fact, both companies, American business icons to say the least, had much to gain by separating themselves from the myriad of other big name companies recently plagued by ethics scandals. Notwithstanding, both CEO’s knew that there was nothing more sacred in business than the secret(s) of each company’s success. Both knew that this was potentially bigger than both of them. Catching and prosecuting the alleged thief was the honorable thing to do. And cooperating in doing so was the only way to accomplish this.

Honesty and dishonesty within any organization begins at the top. An ethical organization does not become so by accident. It takes a determined CEO who makes high ethical standards one of his/her priorities. It has been said that employees only care about what their boss cares about. This is basically true. It’s the filter down theory. But if a CEO is ethically neutral or worse, ethically challenged, the likelihood exists that the rest of the organization will be a breeding ground for impropriety. However, when managers present examples of superior ethical conduct the rest of the organization will get the idea.

Theft of trade secrets is a serious federal crime with stiff consequences. It is investigated at the federal level because the very essence of our nation’s commerce system is at stake. A company’s proprietary intellectual property is what gives it competitive value in the market place.

Companies can help safeguard trade secrets by doing proper background checks on its employees. Credit reports should be part of the package for management employees and employees with audit or accounting responsibilities. For senior executive and board level screenings, federal criminal, SEC, and civil searches should be included. A properly structured exit interview can be instrumental in uncovering ethics problems in any organization. Protection of client lists, suppliers, and other sensitive data can be accomplished through proper controls that restrict internal access to such material. Penetration testing of intranet and internet based systems should be considered as part of your overall security program. Finally, access control systems that provide an audit trail can help secure your building and key internal areas.

There is little doubt that Joya Williams’ attorney will advise her to use the Sandy Berger defense and claim the alleged theft of the Coke recipe was inadvertent; simply an accident of sorts. If you recall, Sandy Berger was caught and prosecuted for stealing documents from the national archives (he stuffed them in his socks). For Berger, it worked. He got off with a misdemeanor charge. But unless Ms. Williams has friends in high places, it is likely she won’t be quite so fortunate. A violation of Section 1832, the Economic Espionage act of 1966, can result in stiff criminal penalties. A person who commits an offense in violation of Section 1832 can be imprisoned up to 10 years and fined up to $500,000.

Store clerk helps thwart terror attack on Army base

In a previous article, "The Soccer Mom's role in protecting our communities from terrorism", I used the term "soccer mom" as an analogy for the average citizen in order to demonstrate how everyone can help in the war against terror. I called for a "special vigilance" at the grassroots level and for citizens in every community to question what they see and what makes them feel uncomfortable and to report suspicious activity. The article spurred a lot of interest, discussion, and quite a bit of scepticism. Perhaps the idea of a soccer mom uncovering a terror cell after dropping her kiddies off at the field was too abstract. Yet, the point had to be made that terror cells live among us and that we cannot rely solely on the intelligence gathering efforts of our government to protect us.

This week the FBI announced that a terror plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey had been uncovered and thwarted as the result of a tip provided by a clerk at a Circuit City store close to the base. The clerk called authorities after terror suspects requested to have the clerk copy a CD depicting a violent, radical Islamic theme. Had the clerk not been vigilant; had the clerk not been suspicious; had the clerk not cared for his/her community, many Fort Dix soldiers may have died. For all we know (the identity of the clerk has not been released) the clerk may be a full-time soccer mom with a part time job at Circuit City.

As the war against terror unfolds there will be more examples of vigilance such as the one just described. And, over time, what it means to be vigilant will become less obscure. Our vigilance must extend to our workplaces, our social activities, our church activities and our schools. Whether it is a suspiciously parked vehicle, a lone backpack, a suspicious package or letter, a box cutter on a plane, or someone discussing a desire to commit violent acts, we encourage everyone to follow the example of the Circuit City store clerk and report what you've seen.

Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of a long fight against terror on our soil - a fight that will span future generations. Our safety and the safety of our children are at stake, yet, as a citizenry we share a reluctance to get involved. We fear being wrong, offending others, or being called a snitch. Perhaps we've gotten lazy, self centered, or just used to playing the odds. Perhaps political correctness has gotten the best of us. Notwithstanding, it is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their communities. Asset Control and ChooseToCare encourages everyone to remain vigilant and to report suspicious or threatening behavior to local or federal authorities.

Asset Control is a full-service security consulting firm. If you think your school or business may be a "soft target", call us today to discuss how we may be able to help make it less so.

Help prevent identity theft & credit fraud!

Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes of all times! But it is also one of the most preventable. Identity theft can ruin a person's credit rating, making it difficult to buy a home, automobile, rent an apartment, or otherwise obtain credit. Repairing the horrifying consequences of identity theft can take years. Similarly, credit fraud costs consumers, banks, and businesses billions each year. Moreover, if your company is negligent in its duty to protect customer and employee personal records you can be sure you will make the 6:00 news.

If you are a business owner, you have an ethical responsibility to help prevent theft of customer and employee personal identifying information. This information can include social security numbers, credit card numbers, driver license numbers, signatures, or any other information that could be of use to a fraud artist. Consider these real cases, and how simply they could have been prevented:

Case 1: The Negligent Retailer
A retailer interested in saving money instructed all of its stores to purge old transaction records by discarding old records in the dumpster behind each of the stores. This lead to several instances of "dumpster diving" in major metro areas where a single credit card number can be sold for between $8.00 - $11.00. In some cases the discarded material included signed credit card applications. Credit card numbers were pulled out of the dumpster by local indigents, who passed them on or sold them to accomplices. The accomplices then entered various stores in the neighborhood to make purchases, or, placed phone orders to local merchants for large amounts of merchandise.

In this case both the company and its customers suffered. Merchandise purchased fraudulently was charged back to the retailers by the various credit card companies. Additionally, the company's reputation suffered and many customers were lost when the story hit the local news. This could have been avoided had the company subscribed to a proper document disposal program!

Case 2: The Charitable Boss
The Home Office was diligent about having sensitive documents destroyed. To make it easy, each home office department was provided a "recycle" bin in which to place the material intended for shredding. This material was collected regularly by mail room personnel and taken to the basement where it was stored for disposal. The material included all types of sensitive material including employment applications, credit card numbers, and more. Monthly, the company subscribed to a document destruction service that would pick up and destroy the material on the company's premises.

When the mailroom supervisor, who was also pastor at a local church, mentioned that his church made money on the paper they recycled, his boss had an idea. Why not let the good pastor hall off the documents for the church where the proceeds could do some good for charity. Additionally, the boss could save some money on his budget by eliminating the document disposal fees. "A no-brainer and a done deal" said the boss! Unfortunately, multiple home office employees and others became identity theft and credit fraud victims as the result of this well intentioned, charitable decision.

Case 3: Whom do you trust?
Needing to know more about their customers, a retailer enlisted the services of a marketing agency to conduct a demographic profile. The agency requested that the retailer send as much information about their customers as possible, including purchase transaction history. Shortly thereafter, company investigators began to receive numerous calls from bank security officials who presented a perplexing problem. The banks had numerous credit card customers alleging fraud. Each customer had made arecent and legitimate purchase at one of the company's locations.

Upon investigation, it was discovered that the company had provided the marketing agency with tapes containing point of sale transaction information to include customer credit card numbers. The agency periodically used unscreened temporary employees to assist with certain projects. These employees took the opportunity to forward these credit card numbers to accomplices who paid the temporary employees $11.00 for each credit card number.

Conclusion
Your responsibility to safeguard employee and customer personal identifying information is important. The FACT Act Disposal Rule, which applies to virtually every business and private employer in the U.S., requires businesses to come into compliance by June 1, 2005 by both adopting and implementing their own document destruction policies or by contracting with a document shredding company or other data destruction company to do so. Penalties for violating the rule include actual damages, statutory damages up to $1,000 punitive damages per violation (with no cap on class action damages), attorneys' fees, and civil penalties up to $2,500. What is even more difficule to measure is the impact on your company's reputation and good name! For more information about the rule and business compliance requirements, visit the FTC web site at http://www.ftc.gov

Consider providing departments that handle particularly sensitive information (H.R.,Security, Accounting, Etc.) their own shredder. Cross cut machines that mince documents are more secure than conventional shredders and are no more expensive. Document disposal services that destroy material at your location are a good option and are more secure than services that pick up material and take it elsewhere for disposal.

Last, we recommend that a review of document disposal procedures be added to any existing internal audit program, and reviewed periodically. We still hear in the news about good credible companies stubbing their toes on this issue. Your employees, customers, and your company's reputation are at risk!

Small businesses can learn from Sarbanes-Oxley

Small businesses are more likely to be hurt by the impact of theft than larger, more structured organizations. According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, the average organization loses approximately 6% of sales to fraud that is primarily internal in nature. To smaller, privately held, organizations that can have a huge impact says Bill Dolphin, Asset Control’s Vice President and Compliance Officer. But, there is much that all businesses can learn from Sarbanes-Oxley, regardless of whether or not they are required to comply.

Smaller organizations, explains Dolphin, tend to rely on trust more than larger, more structured companies. Audit programs may be less formal in nature or non-existent and employee screening may be less of a priority. In short, business owners sometimes operate under a false sense of security that often accompanies a familiarity with employees who may be long term. The thought may be, “I know my folks – we’re like family”. Or, “I’m on top of my numbers, I’d know if something was wrong”, says Dolphin. This thought pattern spells trouble and can create an environment where losses may occur. The fact is that fraud, when it occurs in smaller organizations, typically goes on for extended periods of time and is conducted by long-term, trusted employees at higher levels. It’s often discovered by accident.

Many business owners, executives and managers pride themselves in developing a work climate where employees feel trusted. Dolphin readily admits that organizations depend on trust to function. However, says Dolphin, a true “Climate of Honesty” is one where there is a balance between trust and oversight. Where we find problems is when there is a lopsided reliance on trust without any verification going on. Frequently, executives will tell us that they are not sure how to construct this balance without creating an environment where employees feel distrusted. What they are missing is that honest employees are often uncomfortable in overly “loose” work environments. During investigative interviews employees will often tell us of their level of discomfort with weak policies or controls, Dolphin points out. “The hang up about employees feeling distrusted exists mostly in the minds of executives.”

So what can businesses learn from Sarbanes-Oxley?

• Do a risk assessment and analyze opportunities for fraud. Sarbanes-Oxley guidelines address the need for internal controls that specifically target opportunities for fraud. Once potential risk areas are identified and prioritized, build appropriate controls to address them. Professional fraud investigators, such as those employed by Asset Control, Inc. can assist small businesses with the risk assessment process.

• Develop audit steps to ensure that the controls you put in place are functioning. If your company does not have a full-time internal auditor, this responsibility can be outsourced. This is a more effective practice than assigning this function to your bookkeeper or Office Manager.

• Review policies and procedures to make sure that company policy supports a climate of honesty. Have a written code of conduct that employees are required to sign at time of hire and yearly thereafter. Your code of conduct should tie in with your written policies and procedures and both should be consistent your expectations of an ethical work environment. When developing a code of conduct it is best to involve employees from various levels within the organization. By doing this you will achieve a better finished product.

• Conduct background checks and exclusionary list (OFAC) searches on all applicants and current employees. Many employers are still unaware that the law requires an OFAC search on anyone with whom you develop a financial relationship. Employment is a financial relationship.

Sarbanes-Oxley is a terrific blueprint for building a solid climate of honesty, whether your company is required to comply or not. Whether it’s through employment background checks, our Sarbanes-Oxley compliant tip-line, our audit experience, or our investigative services, Asset Control can assist in reducing your organization’s exposure to fraud.

Bullies: Out of the schoolyard and into the workplace

Bullies are no longer relegated to playgrounds, schoolyards, high school locker rooms, or hallways. In fact, bullies have graduated and taken their behaviors to higher levels. Workplace bullying, or “mobbing” as it is sometimes referred to, is a growing concern for employees and employers alike. Mobbing is recognized as a serious workplace phenomenon internationally as well as in the United States.

What constitutes mobbing? According to social psychologist Dr. Ruth Namie, mobbing is defined as "the repeated mistreatment of one employee targeted by one or more employees with a malicious mix of humiliation, intimidation and sabotage of performance.” Within the context of the workplace, mobbing poses new and unique legal issues for employers and threatens to overtake sexual harassment as the workplace cause de jour. Several states, including California and Oregon, have undertaken legislation or other administrative action to address workplace mobbing:

• Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality Anti-Mobbing Policy No. 50.110 defines mobbing as “intentional verbal or non-verbal conduct by one or more individuals against another individual over a period of time, that continuously and systematically: Intimidates, shows hostility, threatens, offends, humiliates, or insults any co-worker; or Interferes with a co-worker's performance; or Has an adverse impact on a co-worker's mental or physical well-being; or otherwise adversely affects a co-worker”.
  
  
• California addresses workplace bullying within the context of its Abusive Workplace legislation (Assembly Bill No. 1582 2003-04). The bill defines Abusive Conduct’’ as “conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include, but is not limited to, repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets; verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating; or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance”.

According to California legislators, somewhere between 16 and 21% of employees have been victimized by health-endangering workplace bullying, abuse, and harassment. Moreover, they find that this behavior is three times more prevalent than sexual harassment alone. What does this mean? Certainly, employers must put mobbing on their radar screen. Human Resource directors are well advised to review their hostile workplace policies to ensure that bullying is addressed and that proactive remedies are in place. Most importantly, Human Resource Assistants and company managers should be made aware of the signs of workplace bullying and the proper methods for addressing same. Additionally, companies should consider developing an anonymous tip-line, such as ChooseToCare (http://www.choosetocare.com/) , that is administered by a third party. In most cases, employees other than those directly involved in the harassment, have information to share but no way to do so anonymously.

Companies need to be ahead of the curve on this one says Bill Dolphin, Asset Control’s Vice President and Compliance Officer. Part of the liability companies face with mobbing complaints lies in the fact that managers often unwittingly participate in the problem. This occurs when the manager documents the decline in the “target” employee’s performance, often associated with bullying, through counseling’s, poor performance evaluations, or other corrective actions; all of which serves to aggravate the emotional or psychological stress experienced by the victim.

What remedies are available to the targets of mobbing behavior? California’s legislation, for example, provides that am employee could seek compensation under the bill or through worker’s compensation – but not through both. Moreover, an EEOC remedy could be sought if the employee can show that the harassment occurred because of the employee’s race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation. State level legislation, however, seeks to expand employee protection to cover harassment for just about any reason (appearance, weight, personal habits, political or social beliefs, etc.).

No aspect of the business community has been spared. Cases have occurred within college faculties, school districts, law firms, and corporations. People can be cruel. Anyone who went through school overweight, with braces on their teeth, having to wear glasses, or handicapped knows this. “That school yard behaviors such as physical and emotional isolation, rumor mongering, work sabotage, threatening and the like is alive and well in the workplace shouldn’t surprise anyone”, says Dolphin. Yet, many employers are so focused on the more traditional forms of discrimination, like sexual harassment and EEOC related issues, that the signs that mobbing behavior may be occurring in their workplace escape them. “In fact, among the Human Resource professionals we spoke to, several had not heard of the term “mobbing” in the context of the workplace”, Dolphin points out.

As goes California, so goes the country. But workplace mobbing is not strictly a domestic phenomenon. Cases have arisen in Australia, the U.K., and Canada. In fact, awareness of this problem is gaining momentum worldwide.

For more information on mobbing in the workplace, please visit:

Mobbing – U.S.A. at http://www.mobbing-usa.com/
Mobbing.Ca at: http://mobbing.ca/

Asset Control is an indistry leader in employment screening, workplace safety, and corporate security solutions. Please visit us at www.assetcontrol.net

A case to watch: Former Swift employees sue meatpacker for allegedly hiring illegal workers to keep wages low

If there was ever a case to watch this is the one. Recently, ICE authorities raided a Swift & Co. meatpacking plant in Cactus Texas, just north of Amarillo. This is one of six facilities raided in a multi-state sweep that led to the arrests of nearly 1,300 employees, temporarily halting Swift's operations. The raids were part of an investigation into the theft of Social Security numbers by illegal aliens who worked at Swift plants in Cactus, Grand Island; Nebraska; Greeley, Colorado; Hyrum, Utah; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Worthington, Minnesota.

Now, 13 former employees of the plant are suing Swift for 13 million dollars. The suit alleges that the employer intentionally and systematically hired illegal workers in an attempt to keep wages low, thus impacting the income-making ability of legal workers. The racketeering-based suit was filed Friday against Swift and HM Capital Partners in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

This is an important case says Bill Dolphin, Vice President of Asset Control. “It’s a unique approach to addressing the issue of illegal workers. The case could open the door for a myriad of similar suits by applicants and former employees who allege they were displaced by employees demanding lesser wages”, said Dolphin.

“This kind of case can make a litigator’s mind run wild”, says Mike Hake of Asset Control and a former Human Resource Director. “While it may take years for a single case like this to lumber through the courts, the potential for it to leave hundreds of similarly themed cases in its wake is extraordinary”.

“It’s a simple and an appealing plaintiff argument”, says Bill Dolphin. For years the federal government has ignored the issue of illegal workers and their potential impact on legal workers. Now, plaintiffs have moved the fight to the civil courts where, quite honestly, there may be more opportunity for punitive action than in the criminal courts. I see this not only applying to displaced former employees, but to applicants who may have been rejected too.

Under RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) private persons and entities may initiate civil suits to obtain injunctions against enterprises that conspire to or actually violate federal alien smuggling, harboring, or document fraud statutes. The law allows for the pursuit of treble damages. Now add the possibility of an individual or class action tort claim for discrimination and you have what amounts to a blank canvas!

The employment of illegal workers is a very emotional issue that has found its place in the national spotlight. This case and its offspring will appeal to persons and citizen action groups who see themselves as soldiers in the war on illegal immigration. For this reason, Asset Control advises all employers to place this case on their radar screens. We guarantee many applicants and employees already have!

What went wrong at HP?

I sat and stared at my HP printer blinking at me for the third time today with yet another paper jam and wondered what happened to the quality. Just a few years ago HP was the darling of the manufacturing community with a product of unsurpassed quality and reputation. I remember too, sitting through a graduate school class and listening to a case study presentation given by the professor about one of the best managed companies in the world - Hewlett-Packard Corporation.

Today, HP is on the verge of unraveling, with members of the Board of Directors and other lesser company directors under criminal investigation for activities the impact of which will affect every employee in every job category and every division. The net result will be that every employee will look askew at their director, manager, or supervisor and wonder if that person spying on them or their family - a further layering-on to the culture of fear that developed during the Carly Fiorina years. Problems like this often trickle down to the product level and quality will likely suffer further due to the huge morale implications that will follow. Stockholders will suffer too.

What happened at HP is not uncommon in the business community. A company culture predicated on good ethics and an above board management style changes, sometimes over time but often overnight, when ethically impaired people happen to good companies. Frequently, the metamorphoses occur as the result of actions initiated by the board in response to lack luster company performance or other real or perceived shortcomings. Often, the changes start with a shake-up on the board itself; sometimes resulting in the appointment of a new chairperson. The change is usually hastened further by personnel changes at the CEO, COO, or President levels. What happens next is a win at all cost climate where ethics take a back seat to achieving certain short term goals and standards of conduct become blurred. Be careful when you hear the euphemism "culture change".

Ironically, the person who initiated the investigations that ultimately cost her her job was the former Audit & Finance Committee Chairperson, and the person who was directly responsible for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, Patricia Dunn; a person in a position to know better. What Dunn specifically knew about the techniques and outsource security agency used to gather personal information, including phone records, is under investigation. What is known is that periodic reports to certain Directors and board members regarding the information gathered were made. The content of those reports and the nature of the information contained in those reports should have set off alarms and sent company ethics police scrambling. The investigation in question was a company inquiry into information leaks by a board member(s). The personal phone records obtained as part of the investigation are alleged to include employees, journalists and the family members of same. Computer spying is also alleged. Whether the information allegedly leaked was material or damaging in nature is questionable.


What is certain is that key individuals in positions of governance made decisions that placed the company at risk - smart individuals whose experience and education would seem to indicate that they knew better. What caused these people to set aside their ethics is speculative. That no one understood that an outsource investigative agency is, in fact, a consumer reporting agency and must comply with FCRA regulations is absurd. But, amidst culture change loyalties are tested and individuals often presented with ethical decisions. The question in play is "are you part of the new team or the old one?" "Are you part of the new circle of trust, or not?" Each person confronted by this question has an ethical dilemma if the newly emerging culture is not ethics based. When intense culture shift becomes evident rest assured that all management employees will be tested. Unfortunately, an employee's options are few: Buy in to the standards of conduct or say "no" and wait for the hammer to fall.

Asset Control recommends that all companies appoint a person to be responsible for the implementation of a company ethics program. This person should be required to become a member of a national organization that provides ethics based training to members. Public companies ought to assign specific board member to oversee its implementation. Typically, this task would rest with the Chairperson of the Audit & Finance Committee. However, the responsibility could reside elsewhere such as with the Chair of the HR Committee. Regardless, that committee's charter ought to include ethics as a documented function. Ironically, the responsibility for corporate ethics does not appear to have been assigned to any of HP's board level committees. What resulted was a disconnect between the board and its Sarbanes-Oxley mandated role in monitoring corporate ethics. All employees need to know that there is a formally established procedure through which to provide ethics related information directly to the board, if necessary.

Last, it is imperative that company officials in appropriate areas are trained in privacy matters. Specific attention should be paid to the FCRA and the company's obligation for compliance as well as the penalties for non-compliance. Several months ago I wrote an article challenging journalist Liz Pulliam Weston's contention that the FCRA has given companies the license to spy on its employees. In the article I expressed concern that some companies might actually buy her story. Apparently, there is one that did. While the primary responsibility for what happened at HP lies with management, the methods of the security agency the company hired must be questioned. The integrity of your outsource agency will ultimately reflect on your company. When you ask for a job to be done, always take the time to find out how it will be done. If the answer is "you don't want to know", walk away. Today (as opposed to 30 years ago, or so) expect that no secret will be kept. Even our government, which is in the business of keeping secrets, can't keep secrets any more. Leaks about questionable ethical behavior will cost executives their careers and topple management.

So how do you keep your ethics while all around you are losing theirs? It's as simple as just saying "no". But there will be consequences. This is what I did when my integrity was tested by the senior most executive in my company. My refusal to bend eventually led to my departure from the company but I left with my integrity intact. You may be the lucky enough to remain after the ethically challenged are purged from the company as is invariably their fate. If you are so lucky, roll up your sleeves. Restoring a company's climate of honesty is arduous work.

Are your service providers placing your children or employees at risk?

Recently, a custodian at Saguaro High School in Scottsdale Arizona was arrested for allegedly raping a 14 year old student. Immigration officials have now said that the custodian, Roberto Lemus-Retana, was an illegal immigrant and was not authorized to work in the United States. Lemus-Retana was employed by a private janitorial firm that supplies about 130 workers to the Scottsdale School District.

Sadly, school districts have helped form negligent hiring law and this incident has the potential to develop into a landmark case. A civil suit of one form or another is inevitable. Here, the flames will be fanned by the fact that the employment of illegal workers is a very emotional issue that has found its place in the national spotlight. One can argue that much of the data that seems to support the contention that illegal aliens are more likely to be involved in criminal activity is anecdotal. Notwithstanding, checking the criminal records of illegal workers is virtually impossible. The vast majority of service providers who knowingly hire illegal workers don’t even bother to check them out. Criminal record checks on workers from Mexico and other parts of the globe are, and always have been of questionable accuracy. You can bet that if an illegal worker commits a violent crime against another employee, a student, or customer, your hiring procedures will be closely examined. Expect enhanced liability and potential criminal penalties.

Going forward, simply requiring your business partners and vendors to certify that they conduct background checks on their employees will not be enough. Due-diligence will require that entities contracting for outsourced employees who will be in close proximity to children and other “vulnerable” persons know for sure that proper screening procedures are being followed.

Many school districts or other employers may want to consider screening the contract employees themselves. You can screen your service provider’s employee by having each contract employee complete a special contractor/vendor authorization form. Your service provider may allow you to bill back the cost of the screening. Screening the employees yourself should be manageable if the employee turnover is low. If administering the screening process yourself is not manageable, we recommend the following:

1) Meet with your business partner and provide them with your company’s employment screening standards. Document the standards and make them a part of your business contract or agreement.

2) Arrange to meet with your business partner and the background screening firm that will be handling the screenings. Make sure you are all on the same page with regard to the screening standards and process (i.e. social search; felony & misdemeanors; at least 7 years back; no database searches; etc.)

3) Discuss what procedures will be used to reduce the risk of hiring illegal workers (e.g. SAVE Program; verify SSN w/Social Security Administration post job offer; etc.).

4) Ask that your service provider make the results of the background check for any person who will be working on your premises available to you on request. Make this a formal part of your agreement. Review all results regularly or audit results on a random periodic basis.

Working with your service provider in this area will be a process of negotiation and agreement. Clearly, it is in your best interest to develop a roster of contract employees who will be regular workers and not a staff that changes every day or two. Administering a background screening program is easier given a more stable staff. Additionally, you will get better service from your provider under these circumstances. If your service provider is uncooperative in your efforts to ensure the quality and consistency of the background checks done on contract employees, consider finding a contractor who will work with you. Your due-diligence in this important area will reduce the likelihood that you will have to share in your service provider’s negligence should an incident occur.

Understanding Sex Offender Searches

Sex Offender searches have become one of our most requested searches. However, it is important to understand just what you are getting when a sex offender search is requested as well as what you may not be getting.

As states succumb to increasing pressure to protect our children, more and more sex offender information is released to the public. However, many states still have laws that restrict which offenders will become part of the “registry” and which names on the registry will be released to the public. In many cases, who becomes part of the public sex offender database is not decided by statute, but by the judges, psychologists, social workers, and other clinicians who work for the courts. In other words, the protection of your children, employees, and neighborhoods is not based upon any objective criteria, but on someone’s opinion.

After an “evaluation’ by the court an offender will be assigned a risk level. This level is less dependant upon the seriousness of the crime, than on the court’s opinion as to the likelihood that the convict will re-offend. Many states, but not all, use a risk level of 1, 2, or 3 (level1 being the least likely to re-offend and 3 being the most likely). Although all offenders who commit some crimes may be required by federal and state law to register, not all registered offenders will be revealed to the public via the state’s sex offender database. In New Jersey and California, for example, about 25% of sex offenders are withheld from public view because they are “low risk” offenders. Moreover, in most states, if an offender chooses not to register as required, he/she will not be part of the public access database. Unfortunately, offenders are not automatically registered upon conviction. They must register themselves upon release into the community.

In 1994 the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act was passed as part of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This law required states to implement a sex offender and crimes against children registry. In 1996, Megan's Law amended the Wetterling Act and required states to establish a community notification system. Unfortunately, the penalty for not fully adhering to these laws is weak. Additionally, politics play a large role in determining just how dedicated some state’s legislators are to protecting our children. As more and more public pressure is applied to legislators, the integrity of the information contained in sex offender databases will improve. Sex offender searches are important as they will help identify offenders who migrate from the states in which they were convicted. They have become a mandatory search for any client who interacts with children or vulnerable adults. However, sex offender registries are not a substitute for criminal conviction searches; rather, they are part of a layering on process intended to achieve due-diligence.

Security Precautions for Realtors

Recently, another savage violent act against a real estate agent has made the news. This time, a real estate sales representative working in an upscale development in McKinney was found brutally murdered in the model home in which she was working. I am personally familiar with a similar case in my home town of Coppell, Texas in which a female real estate agent was attacked and repeatedly stabbed during a home showing. In each case the agent was alone with a supposed potential client. Both crimes are similar in that they occurred during open house showings which have proven to be particularly risky for agents throughout the country. That the neighborhoods were upscale may have been a contributing factor in these and other similar crimes. When a customer asks to see expensive homes sales people sometimes forget security precautions in the midst of their excitement.

The situation in which these agents placed themselves is all too common in the industry. My wife and I have personally viewed hundreds of model homes that were attended by lone female agents. Rarely do we hear about attacks of male agents in these situations. Female agents who work alone in model homes are more likely to be targeted for robbery and sexual assault for reasons that are obvious to most. The following security precautions are written for agencies, builders and independent agents alike. I encourage agencies and builders to formally adopt and adhere to security procedures because they could save a life and because builders and agencies may be liable in the future for not being proactive in protecting their representatives. Train all agents and sales reps how to be safe.

1) Be aware that your chosen profession poses known safety risks that are real! Knowing this and being aware of your surroundings at all times is a step in the right direction.

2) Don’t work a model or open house alone. If the agency will not provide a partner, bring a friend. There is true safety in numbers.

3) If the home has a monitored alarm system, know the alarm’s panic sequence.

4) Builders – activate the model home’s monitored alarm system. Don’t pinch pennies by not having the system monitored prior to the home being sold. Besides the safety of your agents, you have office equipment and furnishings that are vulnerable to theft.

5) Take your cell phone. I generally don’t plug phone companies, but Nextel phones have direct communications (walkie-talkie) capability and provide almost instant communications. Carry the phone on your person – not in your handbag!

6) Make a plan to check in with your office on a routine basis. Let them know the address(s) you are going to. Once back at your base, let them know that too. If there is no staff at your office to check in with, leave a record of your intended destination on an answering machine or with an answering service.

7) Agree on code words that can be used to alert others that you feel you are or may be in distress. For example, “there’s a yellow light on the Jones contract” can communicate that you feel threatened or at risk. Likewise, “there’s a red light on the Jones contract” can mean send help.

8) Leave your best jewelry at home.

9) Adopt a businesslike rather than a provocative manner of dress.

10) Take a few moments to learn the layout of the home you are showing – from a safety standpoint. Plan an escape route in the event you feel threatened.

11) If you don’t know the customer well, have them follow you to the property in their car. Many of the agent assaults we know of have occurred when the customer got in the car with the agent.

12) Minimally, obtain a photo copy of their Driver License, or, pre-qualify the shopper. Explain to them that this is security policy. Simply filling out a buyer information form is not enough. You need to corroborate the information on the form against a driver’s license. Obtain the customer’s license plate number too.

Technology may provide some assistance to builders who show model homes as camera systems, particularly those that can be monitored over the Internet, are very inexpensive. Business partners may be persuaded to install their home video systems in models at no cost, as a sales tool. GPS guided personal security devices are hitting the market and should be considered by sales reps and agents. Some cell phones now include global positioning chips. Similarly, GPS chips can now be concealed in watch bands, bracelets and other items that can be worn on the body. Having said this, awareness and not electronics should be seen as the basis of an effective safety program.

Last, I encourage all real estate certification schools to provide safety training for agents-to-be. If not required by law, it is simply the right thing to do. It could save a life!

First Strike: Feds Seize both Management and Workers in Enforcement Raid

In what may be the first of many raids to come, Federal ICE officials rounded up over 1000 illegal immigrants from a number of IFCO System locations. IFCO Systems, the nations leading manufacturer of wooden pallets and crates, has offices in several states. During the raid Wednesday, Federal authorities hit company locations in Houston, Cincinnati, Phoenix, and Albany. According to CNN, over 53% of employees “sampled” by the Feds had “faulty” Social Security Numbers. That is to say, numbers belonging to children, numbers shared by several other individuals, numbers belonging to dead people, or numbers belonging to people not working for the company. Among those arrested, reports CNN, were seven current and former managers of the company.

“This is a scary proposition for many employers” says Bill Dolphin, Vice President of Asset Control. “We knew it would be just a matter of time before the government reacted to public sentiment against employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. What we don’t know is what the Fed’s approach will be going forward. Their enforcement program has been random and arbitrary up to now, if one can say there has been an enforcement program at all”, says Dolphin. “We can only believe this is a glimpse of what’s to come. “It’s a warning shot across the bow of employers who don’t employ due diligence in determining a workers eligibility”.

Although verifying an applicant’s social security number as part of a pre-employment screening process is a “best practice”, some employers still don’t bother to do it, says Russ Rosenberg, President of Asset Control. “Without a social search all you have are spaces filled in on an application and an I-9, but nothing to check your information against. You’re placed in the position of having to take the applicant’s word for much of the information they provide. Employers just can’t afford to put themselves in that position any longer”.

Although employers can verify certain information with the Social Security Administration, post-hire, such as name and date of birth, this verification is of limited value. It won’t, for example, tell you if a number of individuals are sharing the same social security number, or, if the applicant has lived in places other than those listed on the employment application. If discrepancies can be uncovered before the applicant is hired, it saves both time and money. Problems uncovered post-hire most often result in a termination with recruitment and training losses.

Employers must think about documenting a due-diligence effort to screen out illegal workers. Whether using a social security number search or participating in the government’s SAVE program, Asset Control can assist you in constructing a defensible approach. Most investigations into the hiring of illegal workers are initiated as the result of complaints from employees and citizens, says Dolphin. With public sentiment against illegal workers at an all time high, any business that ignores the law is at risk.

For more information about detecting illegal workers go to: http://assetcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/02/know-how-to-detect-illegal-workers.html

Protecting your company’s good name!

Recently, Radio Shack Corporation made the news when it was learned that CEO, David Edmondson, had falsified his resume. Edmondson had worked his way up within the organization and had been with the company several years before resigning late last week. Apparently, the CEO claimed a college degree he never earned. Could a simple background check have prevented the public embarrassment and organizational disruption that befell this local Fort Worth business icon? Probably.

Often we see a reluctance to conduct routine background checks for executive positions, especially at the senior executive and board levels. I know this first hand, after having spent over 30 years in the corporate world developing and implementing employment backgrou