[Vision2020] RE: outrage in our schools

[Andreas Schou]

----- Original Message -----
From: Shirley Pissdoff <spissdoff@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 2:37 pm
Subject: [Vision2020] RE: outrage in our schools

> For me to divulge who I am or any other information would risk my 
> daughters.  This person has contact with my children on a daily 
> basis.  This is not a hoax as some of you seem to believe.  I have 
> been accused of being "dougie" although no one can tell me who 
> this is.  Let me restate that it is not retribution to me, but to 
> my children.  
> As for facts,  what I can give you is follows:
> This person was employed by the PD as a probation officer who 
> would go "hunting", (for lack of a better word) for kids on 
> probation who would violate their terms of parole. Usually at 
> night, he would search for parties.   It was first brought to my 
> attention by a young adult that he in fact had "gotten high" with 
> this person.   I do not know if this young man was a parolee or 
> not.  
> Please understand that I am not looking for any other answers to 
> this problem other than getting the school district to do 
> mandatory drug testing.  
> Also, to Tom Hansen and Lujane, I have made my statements to the 
> MPD, at 9:00 am to Officer Miller.  I spoke with Dr. Donicht on 
> Friday at the school district office at 9:30 am and I also emailed 
> Dr. Marilyn Howard at the state level of education and was 
> politely turned down by all three as it was an out of sight, out 
> of mind issue.  These people to me are an influential part of my 
> childrens future in Moscow School district, and if they dont want 
> to be a part of the problem, then I feel they should at least be 
> part of the solution.  Again I state my question.  How do I get 
> our school district to do mandatory drug testing?

What you're asking is this: that it is a compelling interest of the state to force its employees to participate in intrusive and degrading urinalysis tests, not just as a condition of employment, but on a regular basis throughout their employment. Our teachers are to be subject to the same level of scrutiny as criminals themselves. I'm not suggesting that teachers should be on drugs; rather, I'm suggesting that an intrusive searches should /never/ be a condition of employment.

As to your specific situation:

Rumors spread by people on probation -- who, mind you, have a compelling interest in getting their POs in trouble -- are not sufficient evidence to do anything other than "talk to" the individual. I don't know if you're familiar with the standard of evidence required to receive a search warrant, but a probationer's unsupported allegation simply isn't enough to make that step to the next level: there has to be actual evidence.

The "facts" you cite are rumors. They come from a single source who has a compelling interest in lying. This doesn't mean that your source /is/ lying, simply that you are wasting your time, defaming your target, and annoying the police by moving forward without any sort of evidence whatsoever.

And Vision2020 probably isn't the place to rant about it, either.

-- ACS