Jump to content



Photo

Illegal Computer Checks to Enter a GCCS building/Senior Law Enforcement Officials Say It Does Not Provide Safety


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#41 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:47 AM

Seeing it and scanning it are two entirely different things.



#42 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:50 AM

Kelley --- motion to approve was made by Bottorff-Perkins; seconded by Kraft.  Passed unanimously.   

 

So will Perkins show her ID and be scanned each time she enters a building ---????

 

Since she is on probation for felony theft, will she be allowed in the building???


Edited by IntegrityMatters, 14 March 2015 - 11:53 AM.


#43 Newbomb

Newbomb

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 11:55 AM

I agree, but the previous post only said the schools have no right to ask for it, so maybe the previous poster meant they had no right to scan it.  However, they do to have a right to request to see it to ensure the safety of the students. 



#44 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 12:05 PM

Newbomb, I agree with you that the school has a right to ask for identification if someone unknown to them is picking up a child from school.  (Welcome to Chatter, by the way!)

 

But requiring an ID from everyone who enters the building and scanning it to check criminal background is ridiculous.  

Does anyone think such a system would have prevented Columbine or Sandy Hook?   Absolutely not.   People who want to enter a school to do harm will not be deterred by a secretary wanting to scan his/her drivers license. 



#45 Newbomb

Newbomb

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 12:17 PM

Thanks for the welcome! 

 

I agree with the background checks at the office not stopping a school shooter/intruder etc.  I am not sure we have all of the details about the system yet but I am wondering if it is a way to take the guess work out of the office employee's hands by scanning the IDs and checking to see if the person is allowed to pick the student up, or if they should be allowed in the buildings or not and other potential possibilities.  This could throw up a red flag on sex offenders, felons, etc. and also eliminates the possibilities of a guest providing a fake ID.  My potential problem is not GCCS trying to implement ways to improve school safety, but subscribing to a service that is expensive.  If GCCS is is saying they are purchasing the program to prevent shootings/intruders, then yes I see the argument that scanning the IDs will not help at all and then the argument shifts to if this system is cost effective for the problems the system is preventing.  



#46 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 12:19 PM

Newbomb -- check out the links in post #26 and #36



#47 Newbomb

Newbomb

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 12:29 PM

Thanks for the links.  Very well written article.  I did not know the monthly costs of the system until reading this thread and while it is hard to put a price on the safety of our students, I understand the argument of the system not being worth the cost.  


Edited by Newbomb, 14 March 2015 - 12:29 PM.


#48 karen

karen

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 929 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 01:41 PM

Well, I went back through the Board Docs for the past few months and found the details:

 

First, at the 3/3 meeting, the claims register shows that a check was issued to Raptor Technologies in the amount of $33,600 for screening equipment.

 

At the 2/3 meeting the Superintendent made the following recommendation to purchase the Raptor system for all schools:

 

"The Raptor Security System would be used by the schools to screen visitors and print visitor badges.  The visitor will present their driver's license to the secretary who will scan it into the system.  The system does a quick background check on the visitor.  If the visitor has a record for putting students at risk, the system can telephone, e-mail or send a text to the principal and SRO.  It prints the badge with the current date on it so the visitor can't use it to get in via another door on a different day.  Scott Stewart, Steve Hobgood and Tom Dykiel viewed this system at New Albany/Floyd in December and were impressed with what it does.  It's an internet hosted subscription which utilizes local hardware such as scanners and printers.  The total cost for 21 units is $33,600 and there will be an annual access fee of $480 per location or $10,080."

 

 

What this REALLY is, in my opinion, is a waste of time and money to give someone a false sense of security.  The only one gaining from this system is Oscar Parada (the owner of Raptor!).

I want to know exactly what records will prompt the the telephone/email/text to the principal.  

I wonder in NAFC has records of how many "red flags" this system has caught and how the principal/school security handled the situation. 


  • IntegrityMatters likes this

#49 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 01:58 PM

So you would rather the school allow your student to leave with anyone who walks through the door that requests to sign out your child than to show your ID?  The schools are required to confirm that the person signing the student out is legally allowed to have them.  I do not know all of the details of the Raptor system so I do not want to comment on it yet, but I do not see a problem with the school requiring to see your ID to confirm your identity to sign out your child.   

All they have to do is ask my child.

" is this your father?"

 

My point is they have no authority to ask for a drivers license, unless you are operating a motor vehicle, the police have no right to ask for it.

Want me to identify myself?

Ask me my name and address.


Edited by woo, 14 March 2015 - 01:59 PM.


#50 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,123 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 02:45 PM

Is a parent without an i.d. currently prohibited from picking up their own child?
  • Quasar and Tina like this

#51 masey

masey

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts

Posted 14 March 2015 - 05:19 PM

I don't know what happens if a parent has no ID but I know I have to show photo ID whenever I pick up one of the Grandkids and I usually know who is sitting at the desk. They don't like making exceptions and I am ok with that. Doing a check on everyone seems over the top to me.
  • karen likes this

#52 Hickory Huskers

Hickory Huskers

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 08:01 AM

A deranged active shooter just blasts his way in.
 

 

Please back up this claim with examples.  At least one example where a school shooter blasted his way through a security checkpoint would be nice.



#53 littletommy

littletommy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 08:45 PM

 They don't like making exceptions and I am ok with that. Doing a check on everyone seems over the top to me.

It's part of the "zero tolerance" policy. Zero tolerance translates into "yay, we no longer need to use our brains". Seems to be quite common with our educational system nowadays, ironic, isn't it?


  • Beading Lady likes this

#54 Holy Cow

Holy Cow

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 08:47 AM

Saville Row,

 

I did a little bit of research on this allegation and here is what I found. The "background check" is not a comprehensive background check through IDACS/NCIC. It is a check of the state and national sex offender registry. This check is not a violation of privacy rights, nor does it conflict with probable cause requirements.

 

I would agree if the school corporation was in fact violating privacy rights or probable cause thresholds, but think about this - if someone from another state comes to a school who is a registered sex offender in another state (which would prohibit that person from legally being on school grounds for obvious reasons), isn't it a good idea for the school officials to be able to identify that person?


Edited by Holy Cow, 18 March 2015 - 08:50 AM.


#55 keep it real

keep it real

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 09:26 AM

Well I hope as you do too that we will get some answers. At the end of the day I think we all agree that if this is something that will benefit the kids of Clark County then lets at least listen and then decide.



#56 Holy Cow

Holy Cow

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 10:48 AM

Donna, I apologize for conveying that incorrectly. What I meant was that it searches all the individual state lists across the nation so that someone registered in NY can be identified in Indiana. I apologize for the way that was worded.

#57 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 11:20 AM

Donna, I apologize for conveying that incorrectly. What I meant was that it searches all the individual state lists across the nation so that someone registered in NY can be identified in Indiana. I apologize for the way that was worded.

Holy Cow -- can you tell us how many sex offenders have been arrested for being inside a GCCS school in the past few years or who have harmed a child inside the schools?   Has this been a real problem?   Every Mom, Dad, grandparent, etc. now has to be screened each time they visit?   Yet, it doesn't matter who comes in during a mass event?  Is this correct?  Doesn't make much sense to me at all.  



#58 Holy Cow

Holy Cow

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 01:37 PM

IM,

 

I obviously do not have the answer to your questions, but I do want to very respectfully push back on your rationale. From what I have read, there is a legal standard that is called "in loco parentis" which means "in place of the parent." Parents have a reasonable expectation that the school protects students when parents send students to school in compliance with Indiana's compulsory attendance law. While I am no attorney, that standard may be different when a parent voluntarily allows their child to go to a sporting event after school. 

 

Aside from the legal discussion, I would bet that the first time something went wrong and a sex offender gained access to the school and the News and Tribune found out, many on this forum would scream loudly about the district not protecting the kids.

 

Just my research and my thoughts.



#59 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 02:43 PM

I think the district is being way "over-cautious".   The greater problem would be to keep guns out of schools -- (think Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc.).    My children and grandchildren have all gone through years of school (and so have I) and I have never experienced any problem with a sex offender visiting a school AND doing any harm to a child.   To make all parents, grandparents, etc. be screened like this is beyond the pale.    Again, can Greater Clark point to even one instance in the last 50+ years of a problem with a sex offender inside one of the schools?    They are more likely to hang out outside of the school than inside.  jmo    

 

Also, why limit it to sex offenders --- they are not the only "bad guys".  What about murderers or rapists or thieves.   It is impossible to protect children from everything --- even if you are the parent.  Sometimes you just have to use plain old common sense.


Edited by IntegrityMatters, 18 March 2015 - 02:47 PM.


#60 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 04:23 PM

 

 

Also, why limit it to sex offenders --- they are not the only "bad guys".  What about murderers or rapists or thieves.  

That would be sort of awkward wouldn't it?


  • IntegrityMatters and Donna like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users