When Steve Smith, an exemplary history teacher at the Belfast Area High School, publicly stood against the fingerprinting of school personnel, I took a serious look into the situation. I had worked with Smith before and I know him to be an extremely thoughtful man and a devoted teacher. What could make such a man put his teaching career in jeopardy?

On a sheet dated June 5, the Department of Education’s guidelines for denial of certificate are as follows. Read this closely and gasp:

1. Any conviction for child abuse or exploitation within the past five years = automatic denial with no right to an appeal.

2. Any conviction for child abuse or exploitation 5 or more years ago = automatic denial with the right to appeal

3. A conviction for any other crime subject to incarceration of 1 or more years with final discharge from the correctional system within the past three years = automatic denial with the right to appeal

4. A conviction for any crime subject to incarceration of up to one year with final discharge from the correctional system within the past three years = denial only if related to the position held with the right to repeal.

I have always heard the official position to be that fingerprinting school personnel was to locate individuals who were convicted of serious crimes, and that it was to find individuals convicted of abusing children. If the purpose of fingerprinting was to “protect children from abuse,” then only 1 and 2 are needed. Otherwise the legislation to fingerprint school personnel has been misrepresented publicly.

Also note that in 3 and 4 “subject to incarceration” just means that the law broken has a jail sentence attached to it. If, after conviction, the jail term was suspended, then that individual would still be held accountable for the crime “subject to incarceration.” Thus any crime with a jail sentence attached is considered, even if that sentence is only for one day.

The ultimate effect of No. 4 is that the “child abuse” argument is, and always was, a red herring. The ultimate purpose was the use of fingerprints to check for all convictions – child abuse would be only one of the many offenses flagged. Child abuse is probably the least statistically significant crime when considering school personnel but it is the one with the greatest emotional disgust; the one crime with enough emotional disgust, but not enough statistical significance, attached to it to move legislators to usurp the basic rights and privileges of 45,000 or more innocent individuals.

At this point in the process conducted by our legislature, I must ask: How does our legislature govern in reality? Additionally, on June 6, Sen. Michael J McAlevey distributed to every senator a broadside giving statistics claiming to prove that the fingerprinting law is working.

According to the broadside, “Statistics based on information provided by the Department of Education as of June 5th, 2001.” It is my understanding that this release of information like the notorious 1324 figure is illegal.

No information can be released for any reason because the original law prohibits the release of any information. The releasing of information was the original purpose of LD 1765 which was amended and passed by the House to, among other actions, prohibit any information to be released. It is clear that no law exists to allow the release of any information but first, the chief of police “leaks” information illegally (nothing has been done regarding this illegal action), and now members of our legislature are threatening to “smear” any individuals who oppose their position with illegally obtained information.

Is this the legislative action our teachers should teach in our classrooms? What is democracy, anyway? What is our democracy in reality?

Ward Jarman of Unity is a Title I teacher who teaches the Higher Order Thinking Skills program at Troy Howard Middle School.