|
Testimony of Mrs. D.J. Stutz Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness Hearing On Clark County School District May 24, 2004 I thank you for allowing me the time to provide you information and points of view from the perspective of PTA. Nationally, PTA represents almost 6 million members, all of whom are concerned about the welfare and education of our nation’s children. One of the five purposes of this organization is "To secure adequate laws for the care and protection of children and youth." As a national organization, we are very serious about properly representing the voice of our membership. Our motto is "every child, one voice." It is out of our belief in this motto that we work diligently with our membership as we develop the positions that we take. It was only after much research, deliberation, and finally a vote on our convention floor by the delegates of this organization that the resolution I have attached to this statement was accepted as an official position. As you may note, it is our position, supported by our vast membership, that background checks on teachers before the issuance or renewing of a license or permit... be completed by the appropriate agencies. Our resolution also states that we "encourage the cooperation between Treasury Departments and Teacher Licensing agencies in the investigation of background checks on teachers." Let me tell you how pleased we are to see this important issue come to the forefront of your committee. On a personal note, as the mother of four, grandmother of two soon to be three, and the aunt of 67, and I have to admit that I’ve lost track of how many grand nieces and nephews I have strewn throughout this great nation. Therefore, I have a huge personal investment in the education process and the protection of our most precious national treasure, our children. It has been with great dismay that I have heard the news reporting on the molestation of children by teachers or personnel in the school district where my children and many of my nieces and nephews attend school. It is even more alarming when the reports state that this person has a history of such behavior in other states that was not reported during the background checks. In my mind, these were preventable incidences. Every child, each precious face that we see as a victim of such a horrific crime, deserves the assurance that such things will never happen again. Not to them, not to anyone else. I am mournful that any of these incidences should ever occur. While I realize that we realistically can not prevent all such outrages from transpiring, it is imperative that we, as a society, do all that we can to responsibly protect our nation’s children from this travesty. That being said, I would like to draw attention to three issues that I believe need to be changed to improve the bill. The first is in Section 3, page 3, lines 22 and 23: "(A) the identity of each individual so arrested, charged, or convicted." My concern with this clause is that there are many individuals who are arrested and charged with a crime, but never convicted. History is resplendent with examples of people falsely accused —people who have had to leave their homes and careers due to repercussions of these false accusations or misunderstandings. I believe the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" is a standard worthy of this great country. Secondly, I am concerned by Section 3, page 3, lines 24 and 25: "(B) the identity of each individual under suspicion for such an offense." This subsection brings my concerns just stated to a new level. Now, not only do you not have to be convicted, charged, or even arrested, but merely the suspicion of misconduct would scar a record. I am aware, as are students, that a cry of foul can turn the tables very quickly for a teacher deemed as unfair, tough, or just unliked. Just as it is important to have each concern fully investigated, it is also important to protect the ability of an individual to care and provide for his or her family if suspicions turn out to be unfounded. The final concern is that I do not see any appeals process, should an unfavorable report be returned. For example, my son-in-law is named Michael Smith. The phone book tells me that there are 41 Michael Smiths with published phone numbers in Clark County alone. Confused identity being only one of a plethora of possibilities of a wrongly unfavorable report, there must be some mechanism for appeal. I thank you for bringing this bill forward. Quite honestly, I have been deeply saddened as I have had to explain to my children, boys and girls alike, to watch for signs of improper advances from all kinds of adults who should be guarding them from such. While I believe that even if this bill passes, the need for such warnings will still exist, I am hopeful that we can find our way to a society that honors, cherishes, and treasures the only asset that truly matters in this nation, or in the world for that matter, our children. |