Posted on 01/08/2009 6:05:11 AM PST by Badeye
Lessons From McCain's Palin Background Check By Sean Leviashvili
Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant, plans to keep the baby and marry the child’s 18-year-old father.
We know all that now, the question is, did John McCain know it before he chose Palin to run as his VP?
That information may have come up in a background check, and the thoroughness of McCain's is being questioned. And what he did, or did not do, before announcing his running mate, holds lessons for any professional, according to career experts. Some may argue that picking a running mate is similar to hiring an employee. How should the background checks compare?
As for the legal guidelines regarding background checks for employers, like most areas of law, they vary based on location. For example, in Kentucky, no consumer reporting agency, which is an investigative agency that falls under the guidelines of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, can maintain any information relating to any charge in a criminal case unless the charge has resulted in a conviction. Meanwhile a consumer reporting agency in Montana, Kansas and New Hampshire can maintain information regarding records of arrests and indictments, with or without convictions, for seven years, according to www.hrliability.com.
And criminal history is just one area employers can delve into. Other areas include credit reports, driving records, references, school records, and others. But what areas are off limits? Can a potential employer pry into a possible employee’s personal life on a job interview?
Again, the answer is unclear. “There is no comprehensive law that says it is inappropriate,” says Pauline Kim, law professor at the Washington University school of law in St. Louis. “Very often there are protections and laws that protect medical information more generally, but not specifically a person’s privacy.”
When it comes to asking about a person’s family before making a hiring offer, it is usually acceptable, she says. “Unless it’s put off limits by a particular law, information about a person’s family that could be known by members of the community is not prohibited.”
On a national level, some legislation limits the extent of job interview questions. For example Title VII, makes it illegal for employers to ask about religion, race, or national origin as part of a hiring decision. (However, the information can be obtained if a potential employee consents in a release form.)
The extent of the background check usually coincides with how closely a potential employee will be connected with the government, says Stephen Brown, founder of HindSight Services, inc., and author of the second edition of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Private Investigating. Employers seeking workers for government agencies will pull information from databases like the Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons database, or the Department of State Trade Control Debarred Parties. But for the everyday worker, most employers won’t spend the money on extensive background checks.
A cheaper alternative are online background checks, but these sources generally don’t meet the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in that they have a more limited coverage. “The information must be current within thirty days, and should cover a range of counties,” says Brown.
Also, these files won’t disclose information about a potential employer’s family of personal life. But, to bring it back to the McCain camp, should it?
Family members could be an indication of a person’s ability, but it is often out of the employer’s league to make that judgment. “When you’re hiring someone, you’re hiring them, not their family,” says Brown.
One piece of legislation that further separates candidates from their family trees is the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, which was signed in May. The act works to protect Americans against discrimination based on their genetic information when it comes to health insurance and employment.
“With this act, medical information is becoming more private,” says Kim, associate dean for research and development at Washington University Law School. “But as for an employee’s child’s pregnancy, that is not off limits.”
The lesson of the last election is that you can become President of the United States without being vetted by your own party. Why on God's green earth would anyone be concerned about a pregnant teenager?
The lesson of this article is that the Dems are afraid of Sarah Palin, very afraid. If, as is likely, Obama screws up badly in the next four years he will find good old Sarah standing at his door asking him to hand over the keys to the White House. You can expect the MSM campaign to counter this possibility to continue non-stop right through November 2012.
In equally relevant news, here is Sean Leviashvili’s learned opinion on removing Bigfoot hair:
(a topic the leftwing dope, should probably stick to)
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/lifestyle/entertainment/what-price-beauty-bigfoots-big-bill
I honestly don’t know much about the author. That said, even a blind pig finds an acorn.
My reason for posting this is in part to remind everybody a background check should always be conducted on anyone holding elective office.
Lets make sure that happens next time around.
I completely agree the Democrats are in fact terrified of Sarah Palin.
To those of us that paid attention in 2004, Obama stood out in exactly the same way Palin is doing today.
I noted Obama would be a serious contender for the 2008 DNC nomination at Liberty Post back then.
Got quite a few scornful remarks to that prediction.
Well, here we are.
Feh!
Sarah Palin / Chuck Norris 2012
Not Chuck Norris. I like and admire the guy...but come on. This is serious, and Chuck won’t be taken seriously as a nominee.
Why would they? They LIKE criminals....see Blago, Spitzer, Rangel, Richardson, etc....
They may have even convinced the GOP that Palin is now too "damaged" by this nonstop media rape to be a viable candidate in the future.
Sarah, if you ever read this, maybe it's best if you get to stay in the clean air and relative innocence of Alaska and enjoy your family life. You're too good to be dragged through the cesspool of Washington DC and the media. But if you have thick skin and are willing to bear the unfair trashing of you and your family, I'll vote for you.
Obama is more qualified somehow?
Hell no Obama isn’t more qualified. Thats stunningly obvious to anyone remotely objective.
Sarah Palin / Chuck Norris 2012.
Seriesly.
I’d prefer to actually WIN in 2012.
McCain wanted Lieberman. I'm sure Joementum would have passed a background check, but how would it have gone over with the voters?
-PJ
I voted for Sarah. Despise McC and always have.
That he would befriend Kerry, knowing what he did to the enlisted men and women of Viet Nam is unforgivable in my mind.
LLS
Let’s see, the Left claimed that Sarah Palin’s most recent child was REALLY her daughter’s baby.
And they are wondering if McCain’s team didn’t vet him well enough?
Kerry’s campaign didn’t vet the VP choice for ADULTERY.
I can only say had Lieberman been on the ticket, I wouldn’t have held my nose and voted for McCain last November.
That done, I’ll never vote for another moderate gasbag RINO again in my lifetime.
Did Bristol Palin do anything that’s worse than what Obama openly admits to in his autobiography?
Or - what he won’t admit to in Chicago?
Another non-news article.
Same here, and same viewpoint.
‘Kerry’s campaign didn’t vet the VP choice for ADULTERY.’
They didn’t have too, they knew all about it. So did most of the MSM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.