Paulding Co. taxpayer funded background checks of citizens.

[ShoeDiva]

A few more tidbits found here :


https://www.facebook.com/savepauldingco/posts/717108958398176


:Stick

So it is 14 not 17? "on up to 14 individuals" That is the only new tidbits I read, did I miss something? (I read it on my phone so maybe. )

 

[stradial]

A few more tidbits found here :


https://www.facebook.com/savepauldingco/posts/717108958398176


:Stick

So it is 14 not 17? "on up to 14 individuals" That is the only new tidbits I read, did I miss something? (I read it on my phone so maybe. )

I think at one point the general thought was 13 or 14 checks, later it was apparently confirmed that the number was 17.

 

[ShoeDiva]

A few more tidbits found here :


https://www.facebook.com/savepauldingco/posts/717108958398176


:Stick

So it is 14 not 17? "on up to 14 individuals" That is the only new tidbits I read, did I miss something? (I read it on my phone so maybe. )

I think at one point the general thought was 13 or 14 checks, later it was apparently confirmed that the number was 17.

It is a bit confusing as written, because it does mention the number 17 and also the statement on up to 14 individuals. Not that 14 verses 17 matters, I just thought that was a new tidbit we all had not mentioned before. Thanks for responding.

 

[Madea]

I think each person who was checked via background check on the county credit card is entitled to know they were checked. I don't necessarily believe that the actual records obtained by way of what could have been an illegal background check should be released.

If Mr. Jones did fraudulently obtain background information on the county dime, his "contract" needs to be terminated immediately.

 

[stradial]

I think each person who was checked via background check on the county credit card is entitled to know they were checked. I don't necessarily believe that the actual records obtained by way of what could have been an illegal background check should be released.

If Mr. Jones did fraudulently obtain background information on the county dime, his "contract" needs to be terminated immediately.

I agree with the notification part.
The problem, as I see it, is that because these records are subject to the open records thing, if the county doesn't step up and take the initiative to settle this with the people who are concerned about whether or not their name was involved, then by law, the county is at some point going to have to either release these names to the people who have legally requested this information or say that they do not have this information.

In my opinion, both of these last two options will not be in any way helpful to resolving this question nor helping create better relations and trust.

While we all seem to agree that releasing these names to the public is not the best path, the fact remains that legally we the public have a right to know these names and that the ball is in the county's court as to whether or not this gets resolved publically and in perhaps a less public way.

 

[stradial]

Saw the BoC meeting thing.
Chairman Austin said that he would not release the names of these people, even if he had them, due to the court case against the man arrested.
Reminds me of Nixon and the tapes.

 

[honeybunny]

I think each person who was checked via background check on the county credit card is entitled to know they were checked. I don't necessarily believe that the actual records obtained by way of what could have been an illegal background check should be released.

If Mr. Jones did fraudulently obtain background information on the county dime, his "contract" needs to be terminated immediately.

I have nothing to hide... release away.


:Ninja