The Observation Deck

All,

Do we really think that the hiring of this individual by Lord and Company was done without a background check? I believe he was hired on purpose because Lord knew he would be useful for intended reasons!

Just to play devil's advocate.

Should the actions of an individual, actions that they did admit to and take responsibility for, let alone actions from 14 years ago, prevent said individual from EVER gaining employment again in the future?

Ryan,
Could you please post your documentation to back up that this person admitted guilt and took responsibility for their actions. Thanks.

The individual plead guilty, in my book that is taking responsibility. Regardless, does any past criminal activity restrict you from working for a city? I think you are setting the bar really high here...

Ryan Salo wrote:The individual plead guilty, in my book that is taking responsibility. Regardless, does any past criminal activity restrict you from working for a city? I think you are setting the bar really high here...

Hi, Ryan.

In my opinion, there's a huge difference between something relatively petty like breaking and entering or drug possession or disorderly conduct ... and what is being talked about here. Plus, don't you want the bar at city hall to be pretty high given the public trust factors involved?

I believe that during an interview process you can discuss past infractions and decide how important they are rather than just flush anyone with a prior. I believe people can change, not saying this individual has, I can't say since I obviously wasn't involved in the hiring process, but to say someone with this history should never be hired by city hall is a bit extreme. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

I just reread your post, are you saying that sending harassing emails is worse than breaking and entering?

Ryan Salo wrote:I just reread your post, are you saying that sending harassing emails is worse than breaking and entering?

We're not talking about "run-of-the-mill" harassing emails in this situation.

And sure, people can change (and even truly repent). But .... again, just my opinion, some leopard spots are indelible.

Ryan Salo wrote:I just reread your post, are you saying that sending harassing emails is worse than breaking and entering?

So Ryan,

If the person was arrested for aggravated burglary, do you think that would be more serious?

Peter Grossetti wrote:We're not talking about "run-of-the-mill" harassing emails in this situation.

I am definitely not saying this particular individual should have been hired by Lakewood. I was just making an argument to the statement that seemed to state anyone with this prior activity should never be hired. I think as a city, those in charge of hiring need to make sure there isn't a hint of impropriety and they should not hire someone that has had know recent issues. If a city has multiple applicants for a position and all is equal except a criminal background I believe the candidate without a criminal background should be favored. Some mistakes do stick with you longer than others...

Brian Essi wrote:

Ryan Salo wrote:I just reread your post, are you saying that sending harassing emails is worse than breaking and entering?

So Ryan,

If the person was arrested for aggravated burglary, do you think that would be more serious?

I do personally believe aggravated burglary is more serious physical threat to society as a whole, that is probably why it is most commonly a felony vs cyber harassment is generally a misdemeanor.

Ryan Salo wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:

Ryan Salo wrote:I just reread your post, are you saying that sending harassing emails is worse than breaking and entering?

So Ryan,

If the person was arrested for aggravated burglary, do you think that would be more serious?

I do personally believe aggravated burglary is more serious physical threat to society as a whole, that is probably why it is most commonly a felony vs cyber harassment is generally a misdemeanor.

So if a person had been arrested for aggravated burglary, would that concern you to have that person inspecting your home with your wide and children present?

Brian Essi wrote:

Ryan Salo wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:

Ryan Salo wrote:I just reread your post, are you saying that sending harassing emails is worse than breaking and entering?

So Ryan,

If the person was arrested for aggravated burglary, do you think that would be more serious?

I do personally believe aggravated burglary is more serious physical threat to society as a whole, that is probably why it is most commonly a felony vs cyber harassment is generally a misdemeanor.

So if a person had been arrested for aggravated burglary, would that concern you to have that person inspecting your home with your wide and children present?

Sharon, ( )

Yes, I'm not Corey so I will not get into a bunch of back and forth responses with you. I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I made my statements and I'm out.

Bye Caitlin

Ryan Salo wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:

Ryan Salo wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:

Ryan Salo wrote:I just reread your post, are you saying that sending harassing emails is worse than breaking and entering?

So Ryan,

If the person was arrested for aggravated burglary, do you think that would be more serious?

I do personally believe aggravated burglary is more serious physical threat to society as a whole, that is probably why it is most commonly a felony vs cyber harassment is generally a misdemeanor.

So if a person had been arrested for aggravated burglary, would that concern you to have that person inspecting your home with your wide and children present?

Sharon, ( )

Yes, I'm not Corey so I will not get into a bunch of back and forth responses with you. I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. I made my statements and I'm out.

What about if a person had a drug trafficking conviction? Would that concern you to have that person with the authority of the government inspecting your home with your wife and children present?