It's pretty much neck and neck in the race for "most popular analogy used in business" but it is either sports or war and Stan Jester did not even get to the swearing-in ceremony without a preemptive strike. We're in for a bumpy ride.
The reaction in the blogosphere has been, well, baffling.
The story goes like this. Stan da Man, knowing that Demon DeKalb was going to insist on a background check (which does require the checkee's permission or a warrant) and fingerprints decided that first, he was not going to accept that the District could treat him as an employee and second decided to preemptively pay for the Dunwoody Police Department to perform a background check and have the DeKalb PD take prints. Then the media got involved and the nuts were off the buggy.
Whilst SdM claimed all along and did in fact post a copy of the Dunwoody PD null findings on his bloggy thingy and since there was no apartment fire that day Channel 2 went kinda open loop with the story with dramatic headlines along the lines of "newly elected school board member refuses background check" with all this resulting in much back and forth from some local blogomenters. At least no one contested the basic facts. Mostly.
One thread of commentary dwelt excessively on the timing of who knew what when and when did whomever make whatever public. There were conspiracy theorists dredging up the leak of compensation negotiations with a white candidate resulting in her withdrawal thereby clearing the decks for a black candidate who produced less than stellar results. These theorists saw a pattern which they suggest is indicative of a culture of corruption. Perhaps. But if you stare long enough you can see the image of the Einstein in a burnt piece of toast.
While the alleged leak from the Administration may have lit the fire under the fourth estate but given that SdM's plan all along had been full disclosure (you know, that trendy transparency thingy that politicians are wetting themselves over) it is difficult to see what the problem here really is. Thunder Theft?
Then it gets interesting. A little bit anyway. At least it was more or less on point. Many blogomenters take it as an article of faith that District background checks are done completely in-house. Then they point to a fairly recent Fuster Cluck where, after passing the in-house check, some students Googled their teacher and found Bad Chi from Florida that certainly would have prevented a hire in the first place. Ooops.
While their burning desire was bashing DCSD they dredged up a couple inconvenient points. First, they revisited the truth that "absence of proof is not proof of absence" and that the best any background check can ever provide for assurance is "we could not find anything." But to their point what could be found should be found which brings us to the second point.
The cited case of Background Check Failure missed an alleged offense that occurred outside the State of Georgia. But the background check run by the Dunwoody PD was restricted to Georgia resulting in "NO GEORGIA CRIMINAL HISTORY IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS REQUEST" which is more than fine for those of us who have never lived nor travelled beyond the borders of the Peach State. Not a malady afflicting many in daVille. Not SdM either.
This provoked a pondering. Did DCSD respond to the Epic Fail on the previous background check by extending the check to all known states of residence? Would this be problematic? Hmmmm.... There is only one way to know for sure. You have to ask the ultimate authority. Google. That's right, google '"Stanley Jester" texas mugshot' using image search.
Veerrryyyy interesting...let us show you the some of the pictures Google associates with a Stan Search.
Close but no cigar.
He wishes.
We WISH.
Simply unavoidable.
REAL background check required.
Overkill?
And there you go, we're back where we started, the war analogy. Some say Stan was just standin' up to da man. Others wonder if this is really the beach he wants to die on and how many brothers in arms he will bloody the beach with.
The reaction in the blogosphere has been, well, baffling.
The story goes like this. Stan da Man, knowing that Demon DeKalb was going to insist on a background check (which does require the checkee's permission or a warrant) and fingerprints decided that first, he was not going to accept that the District could treat him as an employee and second decided to preemptively pay for the Dunwoody Police Department to perform a background check and have the DeKalb PD take prints. Then the media got involved and the nuts were off the buggy.
Whilst SdM claimed all along and did in fact post a copy of the Dunwoody PD null findings on his bloggy thingy and since there was no apartment fire that day Channel 2 went kinda open loop with the story with dramatic headlines along the lines of "newly elected school board member refuses background check" with all this resulting in much back and forth from some local blogomenters. At least no one contested the basic facts. Mostly.
One thread of commentary dwelt excessively on the timing of who knew what when and when did whomever make whatever public. There were conspiracy theorists dredging up the leak of compensation negotiations with a white candidate resulting in her withdrawal thereby clearing the decks for a black candidate who produced less than stellar results. These theorists saw a pattern which they suggest is indicative of a culture of corruption. Perhaps. But if you stare long enough you can see the image of the Einstein in a burnt piece of toast.
While the alleged leak from the Administration may have lit the fire under the fourth estate but given that SdM's plan all along had been full disclosure (you know, that trendy transparency thingy that politicians are wetting themselves over) it is difficult to see what the problem here really is. Thunder Theft?
Then it gets interesting. A little bit anyway. At least it was more or less on point. Many blogomenters take it as an article of faith that District background checks are done completely in-house. Then they point to a fairly recent Fuster Cluck where, after passing the in-house check, some students Googled their teacher and found Bad Chi from Florida that certainly would have prevented a hire in the first place. Ooops.
While their burning desire was bashing DCSD they dredged up a couple inconvenient points. First, they revisited the truth that "absence of proof is not proof of absence" and that the best any background check can ever provide for assurance is "we could not find anything." But to their point what could be found should be found which brings us to the second point.
The cited case of Background Check Failure missed an alleged offense that occurred outside the State of Georgia. But the background check run by the Dunwoody PD was restricted to Georgia resulting in "NO GEORGIA CRIMINAL HISTORY IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS REQUEST" which is more than fine for those of us who have never lived nor travelled beyond the borders of the Peach State. Not a malady afflicting many in daVille. Not SdM either.
This provoked a pondering. Did DCSD respond to the Epic Fail on the previous background check by extending the check to all known states of residence? Would this be problematic? Hmmmm.... There is only one way to know for sure. You have to ask the ultimate authority. Google. That's right, google '"Stanley Jester" texas mugshot' using image search.
Veerrryyyy interesting...let us show you the some of the pictures Google associates with a Stan Search.
Close but no cigar.
He wishes.
We WISH.
Simply unavoidable.
REAL background check required.
Overkill?
And there you go, we're back where we started, the war analogy. Some say Stan was just standin' up to da man. Others wonder if this is really the beach he wants to die on and how many brothers in arms he will bloody the beach with.
Posts
