Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Screening school vendors

In a hurried response to Jessica Lunsford's murder, lawmakers passed a crime bill that school districts are now struggling to comply with.

The frenetic pace at which Florida lawmakers reacted this spring to the news that a convicted sex offender may have abducted and murdered a 9-year-old Homosassa girl could be described as a legislative stampede. So Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Dunnellon, might want to choose her words more carefully in reacting to the educational fallout.

An amendment Argenziano offered to the 82-page crime bill is now hitting school districts with considerable force. The provision requires that by Sept. 1 schools screen all "noninstructional school district employees or contractual personnel who are permitted access on school grounds while students are present" for "crimes of moral turpitude." As a result, Pinellas already has purchased three new fingerprinting machines, hired three new people and sent letters to 20,000 companies with business ties to the district. Pasco has identified 30,000 vendors. Hillsborough schools' chief of staff James Hamilton puts it this way: "The logistics of this are nightmarish."

Argenziano offers some particularly ungracious advice: "Stop freakin' panicking, and use Common Sense 101."

Common Sense 101? What about Florida Statute 1012.465(1)?

The Jessica Lunsford Act, for the record, was signed into law six weeks and three days after police say John Couey confessed to the murder. It calls for electronic tracking of sex offenders on probation, longer prison terms for those who commit crimes against children and strict monitoring of all offenders upon release. The provision for background checks of school contractors, spurred by the discovery that Couey had worked as a mason's helper at Homosassa Elementary, was submitted neither to committee nor staff analysis. It also came unaccompanied by financial appropriation.

The intent of the provision is reasonable, but its practical impact on school districts is not. Schools should do all they can to assure that students are protected from predators. But a law that treats a milk deliverer the same as a classroom aide lacks coherence. If the state is serious about background screening on school campuses, then it needs to refine the law, narrow its scope and provide the money for it.

Argenziano acknowledges the need to clarify the law. Maybe next time she won't be so panicked.

[Last modified August 9, 2005, 01:23:15]