U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96-150 PDF 2004

H.R. 2649, SCHOOLS SAFELY ACQUIRING FACULTY EXCELLENCE ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY 

COMPETITIVENESS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

September 28, 2004

Serial No. 108-73

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice Chairman 

Cass Ballenger, North Carolina 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Sam Johnson, Texas 

James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania 

Charlie Norwood, Georgia 

Fred Upton, Michigan 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Jim DeMint, South Carolina 

Johnny Isakson, Georgia 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Jon C. Porter, Nevada 

John Kline, Minnesota 

John R. Carter, Texas 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee 

Phil Gingrey, Georgia 

Max Burns, Georgia 

George Miller, California 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Major R. Owens, New York 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Ed Case, Hawaii 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Denise L. Majette, Georgia 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Tim Ryan, Ohio 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York

Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ McKEON, California, Chairman

Johnny Isakson, Georgia, Vice Chairman 

John A. Boehner, Ohio 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Sam Johnson, Texas 

Fred Upton, Michigan 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Jon C. Porter, Nevada 

John R. Carter, Texas 

Phil Gingrey, Georgia 

Max Burns, Georgia 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Tim Ryan, Ohio 

Major R. Owens, New York 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

George Miller, California, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on September 28, 2004 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 21st Century 

Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce, prepared 

statement of ................................................................................................... 4

Porter, Hon. Jon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Statement of Witnesses: 

Asselin, Chief Butch, Chief of Police, Skowhegan Police Department, 

Skowhegan, Maine, on behalf of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, Washington, DC ..................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20

Belak, Barbara, Assistant to the Associate Superintendent for Human 

Resources, Clark County Schools, Las Vegas, Nevada .............................. 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Dean, Dr. William, Superintendent, Frederick County Public Schools, 

Winchester, Virginia ..................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

Uzzell, Donna, Director, Criminal Justice Information Services, Florida 

Department of Law Enforcement, Tallahassee, Florida ............................ 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Additional statement submitted for the record ....................................... 29

(1)

H.R. 2649, SCHOOLS SAFELY ACQUIRING 

FACULTY EXCELLENCE ACT 

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McKeon, Porter, and Holt. 

Staff Present: Kevin Frank, Professional Staff Member; Catharine Meyer, Legislative Assistant; Whitney Rhoades, Professional 

Staff Member; Krisann Pearce, Deputy Director of Education and 

Human Resources Policy; Rich Stombres, Assistant Director of 

Education and Human Resources Policy; Brad Thomas, Legislative 

Assistant; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Denise Forte, Legislative Associate/Education; Ricardo Martinez, Legislative Associate/Education; Alex Nock, Legislative Associate/Education; and Joe Novotny, Legislative Associate/Education. 

Chairman MCKEON. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee 

on 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce will come to order. 

We are holding this hearing today to hear testimony on 

H.R. 2649, the Schools Safely Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act of 

2003. 

Under Committee Rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. Therefore, if other Members have statements, they will be 

included in the record. 

With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open 14 days to allow Members’ statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in 

the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

I think it was several months ago we were out in Nevada and 

held a hearing on this bill at the request of Mr. Porter. And it was 

the first I learned of the problem that they were having out there, 

where they had to hire 2,000, 2,500 teachers a year, and how difficult it was to really verify the character of some of the teachers. 

And so I thought it was an outstanding thing that Mr. Porter was 

doing in putting forward this bill. 

2

And when he asked if we would hold a hearing here in Washington, I thought it was very important that we do so. With that, 

I would like to turn to Mr. Porter and have him give the opening 

statement, if he would, to begin this hearing. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON C. PORTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Mr. PORTER. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this really important hearing in our Committee 

on 21st Century Competitiveness. I would like to thank you all for 

joining us today so we can discuss this important topic and find 

ways to find a safe place for all of our children across the country. 

I would also like to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses 

who we will be introducing shortly. Students, parents, teachers and 

taxpayers have made great strides in the past 4 years in bringing 

better educational services to our elementary and secondary school 

children. While we continue to see the product of these efforts, 

there are still several aspects that remain problematic. Chief 

among these is the safety of children in our schools. The dangers 

that threaten our children are widespread, from the threat of terrorism, to the presence of sexual predators in the classroom, and 

in the hallways of our campuses. 

We are here today to explore ways to prevent this last type of 

abuse. In May, with the help of the Chairman, this Subcommittee 

held a field hearing in my home district, Clark County, Nevada, 

where we heard about the issues that currently face the fast-growing school districts as they attempt to hire large numbers of highly 

qualified, reliable individuals to fill the important positions that 

allow our children to succeed. 

Many school districts around the Nation rely on out-of-State recruitment of teachers in order to meet the standards and the needs 

of those growing communities. In order to ensure students’ safety, 

many school districts require potential hires to be fingerprinted for 

background checks through the FBI. 

However, current practice often results in incomplete data for 

noncriminal purposes. The Clark County School District, the school 

district that I represent, is constantly faced with these issues. As 

the district grows an average of 15,000 new students a year, we 

need to hire over 2,000 new teachers. We have one of the fastest 

growing school districts where we also need to build 18 new schools 

in a given year. Imagine the challenges. 

The majority of teachers that we have hired come from outside 

of the state, because we are a small state. But, there are other 

States that have similar challenges with their growth. We depend 

upon other States to share with us any information that will help 

remove the threat of sexual predators in our classrooms. As recently as this summer, charges of sexual abuse by individuals employed by the school district became public. 

There must be zero tolerance for this type of behavior, and I believe that Congress has the ability to make significant strides in reducing the occurrence of sexual assault in our schools. 

As I mentioned earlier, it is just not Clark County, Nevada, it 

is a problem across the country. And while I see no reason to oppose the intent of the legislation, I am also aware that we need to 

3

make some adjustments to the mechanisms that have been suggested. 

I look forward to working on this legislation with all of the stakeholders so that we can effectively make strides in improving this 

situation. 

Mr. Chairman, the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact signed into law on October 10th of 1998, established an infrastructure by which States can exchange criminal records for noncriminal justice purposes. The Compact organizes an electronic information sharing system among the Federal Government and the 

States to exchange criminal history records for noncriminal justice 

purposes, such as background checks for governmental licensing 

and employment. 

Under the Compact, the FBI and the member States agree to 

maintain detailed data bases of their respective criminal history 

records and to make them available to the Federal Government 

and to member States for authorized purposes. 

The Compact requires the FBI to permit use of the national identification index and the national fingerprint file by each member 

State and to provide, in a timely fashion, Federal and State criminal history records to requesting member States. 

It also requires member States to provide information and 

records for the national identification index and the national fingerprint file and to provide criminal history records in a timely 

fashion through criminal history repositories of other member 

States and the Federal Government for noncriminal justice purposes. 

As a result, when the Compact member States apply for a criminal history background check, they receive information from all 

participating States with a single application. The legislation we 

are examining today would require States to partake in this nationwide information sharing system that would provide human resources directors and administrators with the background information that they need to hire qualified individuals without records of 

sexual abuse to serve in our schools and to teach our children. 

Unfortunately only 21 States have currently ratified this Compact. 21 States. While the remaining 29 States still have the opportunity to ratify this Compact, I believe that we must encourage this 

action with thoughtful and effective legislation. By providing a 

more compelling reason to join the Compact, H.R. 2649 would close 

one of the cracks through which potentially harmful individuals 

might slip. 

As we examine H.R. 2649, the Schools Safely Acquiring Faculty 

Excellence Act of 2003, I urge the Subcommittee to consider the importance of a safe learning environment. But I would also like to 

gain greater insight in how this Committee can craft legislation 

that best addresses this very important issue. 

The immediate and long-term harm that these few unscrupulous 

individuals can cause is immense. Certainly the immediate physical affects of sexual abuse can be devastating. That said, the longterm psychological affects have proven to be incredibly harmful 

throughout the life of the victim of the crime. 

I believe we can all agree that these atrocities and atrocious acts 

must be removed from our schools, and our children should be able 

4

to attend school without the fear of this deprived behavior. It is my 

hope that we can learn from our witnesses today about the scope 

of the problem, as well as some of the best practices currently 

being used to deal with this issue. 

I would also like to point out to my colleagues that—the fact that 

is a very small number of individuals that are endangering the security of our children. We have many, many outstanding teachers 

across this country, the best of the best are in our school districts, 

but there are a few. 

With the vast majority of teachers and staff, our children are 

safe and of course in good hands. But we must, however, ensure 

that these few corrupt individuals are unable to enter our schools 

and abuse our children. 

Mr. Chairman, I again say thank you for convening this panel 

of witnesses who can help this Committee further understand the 

need to protect our children from any individuals who might wish 

to harm them, but also from the experts that are with us today. 

I look forward to working with the Committee on this important 

legislation in the future, and am anxious to hear our testimony 

today. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCKEON. Mr. Kildee is not able to be with us here 

today, but we will let him insert his statement in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 21st 

Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning, today marks the second time this subcommittee has held a hearing 

on H.R. 2649. While this legislation deserves the Subcommittee’s consideration just 

as much as any other bill, I am not sure what the Subcommittee might learn that 

it didn’t learn in May of this year. Regardless, I look forward to joining my Chairman and friend as we renew our discussion of this bill. 

H.R. 2649 has been introduced by our colleague Representative Porter from Nevada. I am aware that the educational system in Las Vegas is facing an especially 

difficult situation. With the rapid population growth in and around Las Vegas, I am 

sure that hiring a sufficient number of teachers is a real challenge. I am equally 

convinced that Nevada’s school administrators want to ensure that children do not 

have teachers who have a criminal history. 

While background checks on teachers and other personnel that deal with children 

is growing in use, several questions remain about this bill. 

This bill denies education funds to a State which doesn’t comply with its requirements. Is this a realistic requirement for States to meet in one year? Do States need 

to pass legislation to meet this requirement? Is it fair to the State Education Department to put their funds at risk when they have little or no control over whether 

a State will participate? 

The bill also requires information on individuals suspected of a felony, as far back 

as 15 years. I have been told that reporting this information may be impossible for 

some States. 

While I am aware that the Subcommittee does not intend to markup this legislation before the end of this Congress. I believe these concerns do need to be heard 

and addressed. 

In addition, I think it is important that we explore other ways of helping schools 

maintain safe and healthy environments for their children. This includes the hiring 

of additional counselors and increasing efforts to reduce bullying. Leading school 

safety experts believe that any program focused on the safety of students must include anti-bullying programs and techniques. These experts have found that the root 

cause of some of the worst school safety disasters were that the perpetrators were 

bullied or did not receive appropriate counseling or intervention when they needed 

it. I hope Members keep this in mind in our discussion today. 

In conclusion Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and 

yield back the balance of my time. 

5

Chairman MCKEON. I now yield to Mr. Porter for the purpose of 

introducing our witnesses. 

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have experts with 

us today that can share with us firsthand the challenges that our 

schools are facing and our families are facing. 

With us today is a special guest from Clark County, Nevada, Ms. 

Barbara Belak, who is the assistant to the associate superintendent for human resources in the Clark County School District 

in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Prior to assuming this position, in July of 2003, she served the 

Clark County School District in numerous other capacities. She 

began her career teaching elementary school and special education 

students. As a teacher she developed an interest in teacher-management issues. As a result, she worked for 2 years on employee 

bargaining issues while in special assignment to the assistant superintendent, and served as director of employee-management relations. 

She also served as past president of the Las Vegas Teachers Association for 2 years, as a professional advocate for the organization 

for over 5 years. Welcome, Barbara. Appreciate you being here. 

We also have Ms. Donna Uzzell. For the past 8 years she has 

been the director of Criminal Justice Information Services in the 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement. In this position, she oversees the missing children information clearinghouse in the Crimes 

Against Children Program, and leads the Department’s efforts to 

provide telecommunications capabilities, training and documentation analysis of criminal activity for law enforcement throughout 

the State. 

She has been recognized for her expertise in child safety, and juvenile justice issues. She is a member of Search a consortium of 

criminal justice agencies, and is currently chairperson of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council, and an appointee to the FBI’s criminal justice information service policy advisory board. 

And immediately to her left is Dr. William Dean. Dr. Dean has 

been the superintendent of the Frederick County Public Schools, in 

Frederick County, Virginia, since July 1998. Prior to his service 

with Frederick County, Dr. Dean served 8 years as superintendent 

of the Grand Haven Public Schools in Grand Haven, Michigan, 4 

years as superintendent of the Rapid City School District in Rapid 

City, South Dakota, and for 4 years as assistant superintendent for 

instruction in Ft. Collins, Colorado. 

Dr. Dean has also served as the assistant State superintendent 

with the Colorado Department of Education. He began his career 

teaching elementary school in Michigan. Additionally, Dr. Dean is 

an active member of the American Association of School Administrators. 

And to Dr. Dean’s left is Mr. Butch Asselin. He is currently the 

chief of police for Skowhegan Police Department in Skowhegan, 

Maine. He was promoted to the position in 1997 after serving 22 

years with the Department as a patrol officer, detective and patrol 

sergeant. 

He has been an active member of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, serving as the organization’s president from September 

6

2003 to September of 2004, also an active member of the Fight 

Crime: Invest in Kids, an organization of law enforcement officials 

dedicated to preventing crime and violence. 

Before the witnesses begin their testimony, I would like to remind the Members that we will be asking questions of the full 

panel after we have heard their presentations. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Porter follows:]

Statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter, A Representative in Congress from the 

State of Nevada 

Good Morning. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, for holding this important 21st 

Century Competitiveness Subcommittee hearing, and thank you all for joining us 

as we discuss this important topic. I would also like to thank our distinguished 

panel of witnesses, who will be introduced shortly. 

Students, parents, teachers and taxpayers have made great strides in the past 

four years in bringing better educational services to our elementary and secondary 

school children. While we continue to see the product of these efforts, there are still 

several aspects that remain problematic. Chief among these is the safety of children 

in our schools. The dangers that threaten our children are widespread, from the 

threat of terrorism to the presence of sexual predators in the classrooms and hallways of our campuses. We are here today to explore ways to prevent this last type 

of abuse. 

In May, this Subcommittee held a field hearing in my home district of Clark 

County, Nevada, where we heard about the issues that currently face fast-growing 

school districts as they attempt to hire large numbers of highly-qualified, reliable 

individuals to fill the important positions that allow our children to succeed. Many 

school districts around the nation rely on out-of-State recruitment of teachers in 

order to meet the needs of their growing communities. In order to ensure students’ 

safety, many school districts require potential hires to be fingerprinted for background checks through the FBI. However, current practice often results in incomplete data for non-criminal purposes. 

The Clark County School District, the school district that I represent, is constantly faced with these issues. As the district grows by an average of 15,000 students per year, we need to hire an average of 2,000 new teachers. The majority of 

these teachers come from outside of the state. We depend upon other states to share 

with us any information that will help remove the threat of sexual predators in our 

classrooms. As recently as this summer, charges of sexual abuse by individuals employed by the school district became public. There must be zero tolerance for this 

type of behavior. I believe that Congress has the ability to make significant strides 

in reducing the occurrence of sexual assault in our schools. While I see no reason 

to oppose the intent of my legislation, I am aware of some of the flaws in the mechanism that it uses. I look forward to working on this legislation with all stake holders 

so that we can effectively make strides in improving this situation. 

The National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, signed into law October 10, 

1998, established an infrastructure by which States can exchange criminal records 

for non-criminal justice purposes. The Compact organizes an electronic information 

sharing system among the federal government and the States to exchange criminal 

history records for non-criminal justice purposes, such as background checks for governmental licensing and employment. Under the Compact, the FBI and the member 

States agree to maintain detailed databases of their respective criminal history 

records and to make them available to the federal government and to member 

States for authorized purposes. 

The Compact requires the FBI to permit use of the national identification index 

and the national fingerprint file by each member State and to provide, in a timely 

fashion, federal and State criminal history records to requesting member States. It 

also requires member States to provide information and records for the national 

identification index and the national fingerprint file and to provide criminal history 

records, in a timely fashion, to criminal history record repositories of other member 

States and the federal government for non-criminal justice purposes. As a result, 

when Compact member States apply for a criminal history background check they 

receive information from all participating States with a single application. 

The legislation we are examining today would require States to partake in this 

nation-wide information sharing system that would provide human resources directors and administrators with the background information that they need to hire 

highly qualified individuals without records of sexual abuse to serve in our schools. 

7

Unfortunately, only 21 States have currently ratified this Compact. While the remaining 29 States still have the opportunity to ratify this Compact, I believe that 

we must encourage this action with thoughtful and effective legislation. By providing a more compelling reason to join the Compact, H.R. 2649 would close one of 

the cracks through which potentially harmful individuals might slip. 

As we examine H.R. 2649, the Schools Safely Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act 

of 2003, I urge the Subcommittee to consider the importance of a safe learning environment. I would also like to gain greater insight into how this Committee can craft 

legislation that best addresses this important issue. 

The immediate and long-term harm that these few unscrupulous individuals can 

cause is immense. Certainly, the immediate, physical effects of sexual abuse can be 

devastating. That said, the long term psychological effects have proven to be incredibly harmful through out the life of the victim. I believe we can all agree that these 

atrocious acts must be removed from our schools, and that our children should be 

able to attend school without the fear of this depraved behavior. 

It is my hope that we can learn from our witnesses today about the scope of the 

problem, as well as some of the best practices currently being used to deal with this 

issue. I would also like to point out to my colleagues the fact that a very small number of individuals can endanger the security of all our students. With the vast majority of teachers and staff, our children are safe and in good hands. We must, however, ensure that these few, corrupt individuals are unable to enter our school and 

abuse our children. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for convening this panel of witnesses who can 

help this Committee further understand the need to protect our children from any 

individual who might wish them harm. I look forward to working with the Committee on this important legislation in the future and am anxious to hear the testimony of our four witnesses today. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you very much. We have a little light 

there in front of you that goes on green, and when you have a 

minute left, yellow, and red. But as you can see, we don’t have too 

many questioners here today. 

So feel free, don’t worry too much about the time. We will be 

fine. Let’s hear first from Ms. Belak. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA BELAK, ASSISTANT TO THE ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT FOR HUMAN RESOURCES, CLARK 

COUNTY SCHOOLS, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 

Ms. BELAK. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members 

of the Committee. On behalf of the Clark County School District, 

which is the Nation’s sixth largest school district, I thank you sincerely for this opportunity to present this information to your Committee. 

I do so out of a strong belief in an ideal that I hope we all share, 

that all students in our Nation’s schools have the right to be educated by dedicated professionals, who will teach them, inspire them 

and nurture them, not target, victimize or abuse them. 

With regard to the language in H.R. 2649, the Clark County 

School District does have some serious reservations about the prohibition consequences in Provision A of Section 3. We fully support, 

however, the provisions described in Section 3(b), and we commend 

the Committee for considering this important issue. 

I am deeply saddened to have to admit that CCSD has found 

itself in the news media too often, as another employee is arrested 

for sexual misconduct with a student. Besides the obvious embarrassment to the school district and the effect that has on the public 

trust in our schools, the real tragedy, as always, is the harm done 

to the victim, a child, one who has been entrusted to our care. 

8

Even if the sharing of the criminal information as covered in 

H.R. 2649 would result in only one less child predator in our 

schools, I would still be glad to be here today to testify on behalf 

of it. 

For background purposes, I would like to share some contextual 

data with you. Geographically, the Clark County School District in 

Las Vegas is roughly the size of the States of Connecticut and 

Delaware combined. With the 14 new schools that we just opened 

last month, we now have over 300 school sites, including everything from a one-teacher schoolhouse in Good Springs, to urban 

high schools that have over 3,000 students. In less than 20 years, 

we have built nearly 160 new schools. 

We in human resources have the daunting task of staffing those 

300 schools. We generally hire between 1,500 and 2,000 new teachers each year, not to mention support staff and administrators. 

However, Nevada’s higher education system only graduates approximately 600 new teachers each year. 

So, like many other districts, we have to turn to other States to 

find the teachers to bring to our classrooms and to our students. 

In recruiting for the current school year, we sent approximately 

170 recruiters to 39 States, and we maintain a dynamic Web site 

so that anyone who has Internet access can learn about our growing district, and consider Las Vegas for their teaching career. 

As a result, we have already hired over 1,000 teachers for the 

2004–2005 school year alone from outside the State of Nevada, and 

we are still hiring. 

Other data, unfortunately, are more unsettling to consider. Every 

school year, CCSD initiates dismissal proceedings against employees for incidents involving controlled substances. Every year we 

dismiss employees for incidents involving violence against students. 

And each year, employee dismissal proceedings are initiated for incidents involving sexual misconduct with students. 

The harsh realty is this: CCSD has over 16,000 teachers spread 

throughout its classrooms. If only 1 percent of the teachers’ commit 

misconduct egregious enough that it brings harm to a child, that 

is 160 teachers. 

If only 1/10 of 1 percent commit such misconduct, that is still 16 

teachers. And if only 1/100 of 1 percent of our 16,000 is a sexual 

predator, that is still 1 or 2 teachers who may sexually molest in 

the coming year, and that is one or two too many. 

Having been both a union advocate who assisted teachers accused of such misconduct, and an administrator involved in the disciplinary action taken against those teachers, I could provide you 

with some specific scenarios, but I am hoping today that that is not 

necessary, because I hope I am preaching to the choir. 

The question is not whether or not we must accept a certain percentage of bad apples as the inevitable reality of this imperfect 

world, the question is, what can we do to better identify those bad 

apples and keep them away from our schools? 

It has often been said knowledge is power. In this technological 

age, that has been translated into information is power; cliches perhaps overused, but true nonetheless. 

School districts need complete information on the applicants who 

are looking to work in our schools. We need to know about the doVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:15 Dec 05, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\96150 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
9

mestic battery arrests. We need to know about the drug arrests. 

And we need to know about the arrests for lewdness with a minor. 

Please note that I deliberately used the word ‘‘arrests,’’ not ‘‘convictions.’’ We certainly recognize that innocent people can be accused 

falsely. 

But, if Mr. Jones was arrested for lewdness with a minor in New 

Jersey in 1988, and again in Florida in 1992, and again in Mississippi in 1997, and again in Oregon in 2002, would you want your 

son or daughter in Mr. Jones’s classroom? 

CCSD routinely asks approximately 20 background questions related to misconduct on its teacher application forms, and we fingerprint everyone we hire. We even fingerprint the volunteer coaches. 

But we need to do so with the confidence that the report that 

comes back is complete, that it includes arrest and conviction information from all States, not just some of them, especially with the 

State-to-State mobility that we enjoy in this great Nation. 

School districts everywhere are hiring employees who will spend 

hours each day working with, supervising and guiding children, oftentimes alone. It is imperative that those districts be made aware 

of any and all arrests for and convictions of felonies and crimes involving violence or controlled substance, child abuse, or sexual misconduct. 

In closing, I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to present this testimony, and I would like to refer the Committee to my written testimony, which included additional information. Thank you very much for your time and for considering this 

important issue. 

Chairman MCKEON. Your complete written testimony will be in 

the record. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Belak follows:]

Statement of Barbara Belak, Assistant to the Associate Superintendent for 

Human Resources, Clark County Schools, Las Vegas, Nevada 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Committee. 

As the representative today of the nation’s 6th-largest school district, I would like 

to thank you sincerely for the opportunity to present this information to you today. 

I do so out of a strong belief in an ideal that I hope we all share: the ideal that 

all students in our nation’s schools have the right to be educated by dedicated professionals who will teach them, inspire them, and care for them—not target, victimize or abuse them. 

On the bright side, not long ago, we had some discussions with a private security 

company regarding employee background checks. As a result of those discussions, 

the president of the company concluded, in essence, that the Human Resources Division of the Clark County School District (CCSD) already does everything in its 

power to protect its students and screen out undesirable job applicants. That’s good 

news coming from an outside company that would have loved to sell its services to 

us. The bad news is: it isn’t enough. 

I am deeply saddened to admit that the Clark County School District has found 

itself in the news media far too often as the public is informed that another school 

district employee has been arrested for sexually molesting a student. Besides the 

obvious embarrassment to the district and the deleterious effect on the public trust 

in our schools, the real tragedy, as always, is the harm done to the victim—a child—

one entrusted to our care. In addition to the trauma of the actual incident—or incidents, as is often the case—the child is subsequently subjected to re-living it over 

and over again, in everything from repeated police interviews and school administrative interviews, to employee dismissal arbitrations and criminal court trials. 

Even if the sharing of criminal information as covered in HR 2649 would only keep 

one single child predator away from the schools, I would still want to be here today 

to support this bill. 

10

To provide you with a background context for our position, I would like to note 

the following data. 

First, statistics you may find interesting: 

The Clark County School District is a somewhat complex school system. We are 

a central-city school system, a suburban school system, and a rural school system 

all in one. Geographically, our district covers nearly 8,000 square miles, roughly the 

size of Connecticut and Delaware combined. A few months ago, I would have reported that we have 289 schools, but now that a new school year has started, 14 

new ones have opened, so we now have over 300 school sites. More than 200 of them 

are in Las Vegas, over 70 of them are in the surrounding suburban areas, and about 

25 are outside the greater metropolitan area in rural Clark County. We have everything from the good, old-fashioned one-teacher school-house in Goodsprings, Nevada, 

to urban elementary schools with 1,200–1,300 students, to senior high schools with 

over 3,000 students, and in less than 20 years, we have built nearly 160 new 

schools. We are just now calculating our student count for this year; last year we 

approached 270,00 students! 

The Human Resources Division is charged with the daunting responsibility of 

staffing all 300 schools. Each year, CCSD generally hires between 1,500 and 2,000 

new teachers, and that’s without saying a word about support staff and administrators; nor does it include our 100+ vacancies, particularly in the high needs areas 

of special education, school psychology and speech pathology. 

Meanwhile, however, Nevada’s state institutions of higher learning only graduate 

about 600 new teachers per year. CCSD alone needs far more than what Nevada’s 

colleges can produce, even if every single graduating teacher in the state came to 

Clark County, leaving our sister counties with none. So, like many other districts 

nationwide, we turn to other states to find teachers to bring to our classrooms and 

our students. In recruiting for the current school year alone, we made approximately 

170 trips to 39 states, and we maintain a dynamic web-site so that anyone with 

Internet access to the World Wide Web can learn about our growing district and 

consider teaching and living in Las Vegas. As a result, we have already hired over 

1,000 teachers for the 2004–05 school year from outside Nevada, and we’re still hiring. 

Please consider now some facts more startling in nature: 

Every school year, the Clark County School District initiates dismissal proceedings against teachers and support staff for incidents involving controlled substances, including safety-sensitive employees testing positive for illegal drugs. 

Every year, we initiate dismissal proceedings against teachers and support staff 

for incidents involving violence against students. 

And every year, dismissal proceedings are initiated against teachers and support 

staff for incidents involving sexual misconduct with students. 

On the one hand, even if there were as many as 70 such dismissal actions over 

the last three years, an employer might be proud to proclaim that record. After all, 

out of more than 25,000 employees, 70 dismissal actions over a three-year period 

equate to an approximate average of 23 dismissals per year—less than one-tenth of 

one percent of a 25,000-employee workforce. That’s really very good! 

On the other hand, this employer feels that if CCSD dismisses on average 23 employees each year for incidents involving controlled substances, violence against children, and sexual misconduct, then we need to do even more than we now do to protect our students better. 

I have already mentioned our appearances in the media when employees are arrested for crimes stemming from misconduct with children in our schools. Every 

time it happens, the press re-caps the former list of arrests, using such comments 

as, ‘‘This is the third time in the last six months . . .,’’ or ‘‘This is the ninth time 

in just three years . . .’’ Often they summarize former details as well, reminding 

the public of a particular arrest or two. Each time, we are all reminded that the 

world can be very unfair for an innocent child. And each time, a former victim gets 

to re-live their own tragedy yet again. 

Here is the harshest reality: 

The data above included teachers and support staff, but if we leave out total support staff figures (since many of them are in central offices or service centers), 

CCSD has over 16,000 teachers spread throughout its schools. If only one percent 

of the teachers—and one percent is a pretty slim margin by most standards—commit misconduct egregious enough that it can harm a child, that is still 160 teachers, 

with potentially many more victims. If only 1/10 of one percent commits such misconduct, that is still 16 teachers. Even if only 1/100th of one percent of our 16,000 

teachers is a sexual predator, that is still one or two teachers who will molest one 

11

or more children in the coming year—just in our one district—and that is one or 

two too many. 

Having been both a union advocate who assisted teachers accused of harmful misconduct, and an administrator involved in the disciplinary actions taken against 

such teachers, I could provide you with some specific scenarios. But I hope that is 

unnecessary, because I would like to believe I would be preaching to the choir. The 

question is not whether or not we should accept a certain percentage of bad apples 

as an inevitable reality in an imperfect world. The question is what we can do to 

identify those bad apples better and keep them away from schools. 

It has often been said, particularly in business and political circles, that ‘‘knowledge is power.’’ In this technological age, that has been translated into ‘‘information 

is power.’’ The cliches, perhaps, are overused, but true nonetheless—and just as true 

for school districts as they are for business owners and elected leaders. School districts need complete information on the applicants who are looking to work in our 

schools. We need to know about the domestic battery arrests. We need to know 

about the drug arrests. We need to know about the assault and battery arrests. And 

we need to know about the arrests for lewdness with a minor. Please note that I 

deliberately use the word ‘‘arrests,’’ not just ‘‘convictions.’’ We certainly recognize 

that innocent people can be accused falsely. But if Mr. or Mrs. Jones was arrested 

for lewdness with a minor in New Jersey in 1988, then again in Florida in 1992, 

then again in Mississippi in 1997, and again in Oregon in 2002—with or without 

a conviction—would you want your son or daughter in Mr. or Mrs. Jones’ classroom 

getting some personal attention after school? CCSD may or may not be getting complete arrest and conviction information at present, since we currently process our 

new-hire fingerprints through our CCSD police. But due to factors not pertinent to 

this discussion, we might not always have our own police force, and many, many 

school districts throughout the nation never will. 

We know first-hand how powerful information can be. We know it because we 

have seen first-hand occasions when we should have been given information that 

we weren’t. Sometimes it is a school district in a non-criminal matter that ‘‘cuts a 

deal’’ to ‘‘clean a file’’ in return for a resignation. Sometimes it is another state that 

sugarcoats, for some inexplicable reason, a confidential reference knowing full well 

and good that a teacher has engaged in misconduct with a student. HR 2649 won’t 

help those cases; we have to look for state relief for them. But, HR 2649 can give 

school districts access to relevant information on applicants’ criminal backgrounds 

that may be being withheld at present. The Clark County School District routinely 

asks about 20 different background questions related to misconduct on its teacher 

application forms, and CCSD fingerprints everyone it hires, from the classroom 

teacher to the office clerk to the volunteer coach (who, technically, isn’t even 

‘‘hired’’). But we need to do so with the confidence that the report that comes back 

is complete—that it includes arrest and conviction information from all states as defined in the bill, not just some of them, especially in light of the state-to-state mobility we all enjoy in this country. As the demand for quality teachers continues to 

exceed the supply, we must stretch our recruiting efforts far across this vast country 

as we intensify our efforts to find the best teachers. Other districts may not need 

as many new hires as CCSD does, but school districts everywhere are hiring teachers, administrators, and support staff who will spend hours each day working with, 

supervising, and guiding children, oftentimes alone. It is imperative that school districts be made aware of any and all contacts that applicants have had with law enforcement agencies for any arrest for or conviction of a felony or a crime involving 

violence, a controlled substance, child abuse, and sexual misconduct or abuse. 

In closing, I would like to express my gratitude to the committee for the opportunity to present this testimony. Thank you very much for your time and for your 

consideration of this important legislation. 

Chairman MCKEON. Ms. Uzzell. 

STATEMENT OF DONNA UZZELL, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

LAW ENFORCEMENT 

Ms. UZZELL. Thank you. I am appearing here today as the Chairman of the Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council, as well 

as director of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s Criminal Justice Information Services. 

12

But I think it is relevant for you to know that I am also a former 

school board member for 8 years, and the mother of two daughters. 

I, like you, share a strong interest in making sure that when criminal background checks are done on people working with our children, we are able to screen out those who present a danger. 

What we have today is a decentralized partnership between the 

States and the FBI for the collecting, exchanging, and sharing of 

criminal history information. That decentralized national system is 

known as the Interstate Identification Index or III. All 50 States, 

the U.S. territories and Federal law enforcement agencies participate. The criminal history records for more than 48 million people 

are referenced in the Interstate Identification Index. A complex set 

of rules govern the dissemination of criminal history information in 

response to more than 156 million inquires annually for both criminal justice and civil purposes. 

In every instance, a complete response comes from either the 

State holding criminal history information, or the FBI, which provides criminal history information on behalf of the States, as well 

as other Federal law enforcement agencies. 

The passage of the Compact in 1998 by Congress was a way for 

States to improve this process. 21 States have ratified the Compact 

which requires the State to directly respond with all of their information when a record request is made for noncriminal justice purposes. 

Additionally, the FBI is a Compact participant, which means the 

FBI provides the records for States who have not yet met the Compact requirements. 

What is the bottom line? When a fingerprint card on a teacher 

applicant is sent to the FBI, the response is based on the search 

of information from all 50 States. Some States, and today the number is seven, will provide the records directly from their files. And 

for the others, the FBI will provide what is housed in files. 

All 50 States do submit records to the FBI and records from all 

50 States are queried and included in the response to an applicant 

fingerprint card. So why the Compact? The best information is held 

closest to the source of the record. That is why when you enact 

Federal laws mandating background checks, you should encourage 

both State and national level checks. 

When States respond to requests for information, they can provide the most complete information available for the identified subject. For example, States may have disposition information in their 

files that is not duplicated in the FBI file, or additional arrest fingerprints that were rejected for quality when submitted to the FBI. 

When the Compact is fully implemented, the vision of a truly cooperative criminal justice enterprise will be realized. Efficiencies 

will be attained by eliminating unnecessary redundancy, quality 

will be easier to ensure, and States on the receiving end of criminal 

history information will have better information to pass on to their 

customers. And that information will be disseminated in accordance with their own State laws. 

I was also asked to mention some innovative processes in my 

State. In addition to school personnel being checked, the legislature 

in Florida has expanded that mandate to include contractors employed by schools. In today’s world, school administrators should 

13

know about the vendors who are providing food to the school, contractors who have access to the ventilation and security systems. 

And actually, as we have learned from the Russian school tragedy, 

you can make the same argument for people who do school renovations. In many States, more and more of these services are 

privatized, which is why we chose to include them in the background requirements. 

In addition, we now retain fingerprints and check them against 

incoming arrests so that the school district is immediately made 

aware if a current employee is arrested in Florida. This procedure, 

which is followed by several States, and it is growing, is ineffective, 

a perpetual background check. 

Our school districts receive both State and the national information within 48 hours of submitting the fingerprints. We use secure 

telecommunications via the Internet to submit the prints electronically after State processing to the FBI, and we respond back using 

the same technology. This enables the schools to continue conducting their business of providing services and assuring bus drivers, cafeteria workers and schoolteachers are hired and in place 

while not compromising the safety of the school community. And 

this is the direction most States are going. 

Technology, the ease that these checks can be processed, and the 

continued improvement in the time it takes to receive a response 

has created a new awareness and interest from States. In fact, 45 

States and the District of Columbia require national background 

checks for education personnel or teacher certification. 

The safety of our children is of paramount importance to all of 

us, and I appreciate the interest you have shown in the State’s perspective on the criminal history records screening process and in 

the Compact itself. And I thank you for this opportunity. 

Chairman MCKEON. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Uzzell follows:]

Statement of Donna Uzzell, Director, Criminal Justice Information 

Services, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Tallahassee, Florida 

Thank you... 

I am appearing here today as the Chairman of the National Crime Prevention and 

Privacy Compact Council, as well as the Director of the Florida Department of Law 

Enforcement’s Criminal Justice Information Services. But I think it is relevant for 

you to know that I am also a former School Board member in Leon County Florida 

and the mother of two daughters. I, like you, have a strong interest in making sure 

that when criminal background checks are done on people working with our children and other vulnerable populations, we are able to screen out those applicants 

who present a danger. 

For over 80 years, the FBI has been the central point of collection of information 

about criminal offenders in the U.S. The information was originally collected in a 

single central database at the FBI, and the primary use of the information was to 

support criminal justice decisions. Over time, two changes have occurred: 1) the 

value of this information has been recognized for non-criminal justice screening for 

sensitive employment and licensing, and more recently, for firearm purchase approvals; and 2) it has become clear that a decentralized system for collecting and 

sharing this information is more effective in providing complete and accurate 

records. 

The FBI remains a key part of this system, and all 50 states, the U.S. territories 

and federal agencies participate. The decentralization of the criminal history files 

is a process that is not yet fully realized. Some states, only 3 actually, continue to 

rely on the FBI to maintain their records. For others, the FBI acts as a central 

index for identifying states that hold criminal records on offenders. This system is 

known as the Interstate Identification Index (triple I) and contains more than 48 

14

1Oregon provides their records directly but has not yet ratified the Compact 

million subjects. A complex set of rules govern the dissemination of criminal history 

information in response to more than 156 million inquiries annually for both criminal justice and civil purposes. Through this index, or pointer system, states make 

their records available directly for criminal justice purposes, but some continue to 

rely on the FBI to respond on their behalf when civil background checks are done. 

The passage of the Compact in 1998 by Congress was a way for states to improve 

this process. Because some states have statutes or policies that restrict the dissemination of records for non-criminal justice purposes, the Compact provides the states 

the means to release their records provided the check is fingerprint based and authorized by state or federal law. 

Since 1998, 21 states have ratified the Compact; seven states are already providing their records directly for all non-criminal justice requests, and 15 1 are moving toward this final step of decentralization. Additionally, the FBI is a Compact 

participant, which means the FBI provides records for these background checks on 

behalf of non–Compact states as well as those Compact states that have not yet 

fully implemented this capability. 

What’s the bottom line? When a fingerprint card on a teacher applicant is sent 

to the FBI, the response is based on a search of information from all 50 states. Some 

states, today the number is seven, will provide the records directly from their files, 

and for the others, the FBI will provide what is housed in its files. All 50 states 

do submit records to the FBI, and records from all 50 states are queried and included in the response when an applicant fingerprint card is submitted. 

The states obviously have the most complete information available to them. This 

is one of the reasons why it is important that federal laws mandating background 

checks you should encourage both a state and national level check. The concept behind the Compact and the decentralization of records is that the best information 

is held closest to the source of the record. When states can respond to requests for 

information by using the FBI’s pointer system, they can provide the most complete 

information available for the identified subject. For example, states may have disposition information in their files that is not duplicated in the FBI file. Some will 

have additional arrests that did not meet FBI criteria or which were rejected for 

some reason when submitted to the FBI. 

We believe that the appropriate role for the FBI in the long term is to maintain 

the III—the index of criminal subjects—and for each state to respond directly with 

the records in its files. When III and the Compact are fully implemented, the vision 

of a truly cooperative criminal justice enterprise will be realized. Efficiencies will 

be attained by eliminating unnecessary redundancy in data capture and processing. 

Quality will be easier to ensure when records are maintained closer to their source. 

I was asked to respond to a few specific questions: 

How does a state benefit from belonging to the Compact? 

The Compact Council provides an opportunity for a joint management structure 

and states can participate in the policy issues such as privacy concerns, standards, 

and record processing. 

Additionally, states will see an efficiency that is realized by not having to support 

their system and records housed at the FBI. The duplication of effort is eliminated. 

Finally, the major benefit for a state comes when other states ratify the Compact 

as the information received as a result of non-criminal justice requests contains the 

best information available from that state. 

Has belonging to the Compact assisted the State in getting information for teacher 

background checks? 

By participating in the Compact and by encouraging other states to become participants the overall information available to each state on any authorized background check becomes more complete. 

Does belonging to the Compact make the background check process more effective? 

The Compact process eliminates redundant handling of records, reduces opportunities for error, and provides for the most complete records to be supplied. In particular, hiring decisions generally must be based on convictions, so making court disposition data available is truly value added. Again, the effectiveness will be fully 

realized through the expansion of the Compact, through the full participation of all 

states in this cooperative venture. 

15

What sort of hurdles did the State have to overcome in order to join the Compact? 

Was it worth the effort? 

Florida was one of the pilot states for decentralization therefore, passage of the 

Compact was made easy because all of the processes were already in place. What 

we hear from other states is that the major concerns or obstacles deal with personal 

privacy and the costs associated with making necessary programming changes. In 

several instances, these concerns were easily nullified when the legislature learned 

the records were already being distributed by the FBI and that that overall efficiencies from the system would outweigh any upfront programming costs. 

The system is not perfect and there is still work to be done. The changes in technology afford options to our users today that were not even contemplated when 

these systems were built. With the help of Congress, grants such as the Crime Identification Technology Act, or CITA, and the National Criminal History Improvement 

Program, or NCHIP, have had a tremendous impact on local and states agency efforts to improve the quality and accessibility of the nation’s criminal history records 

as well as upgrade criminal justice information systems and identification technologies. States continue to strive to improve the record screening process, amid the 

increasing demand to use this information for a variety of screening purposes. The 

states rely on this funding to meet these new challenges. Additionally, state leaders 

need to be educated on the Compact so that they can make informed decisions on 

whether to participate. 

Knowing how important complete, timely and accurate criminal records are for 

teacher screening, I would urge this committee not to focus fully on whether the 

state or the FBI provides the response. Rather, I would urge continued support for 

the improvement of these criminal records, for improved automation of both arrest 

and court disposition reporting and for the continuing decentralization of these 

records by expansion of the Compact. 

I was also asked to provide for the committee a brief example of some innovative 

processes occurring at the state level in the area of school employee background 

checks. In Florida, we have had a statute in place for a number of years requiring 

all instructional and non instructional personnel to be screened. Effective this year, 

however, in addition to those personnel, the Florida Legislature has mandated 

checks for student teachers, interns, substitute teachers and contractors. I wanted 

to particularly highlight the contractors. In reviewing best practices for emergency 

preparedness plans for schools, it is highly recommended that school administrators 

know about the vendors who are providing food to the school and contractors who 

have access to the heating, cooling, ventilation and security systems. And actually, 

as we have learned from the Russian school tragedy, you can make the same argument for people who do renovations in our schools. According to press accounts of 

the incident, Russian security officials indicated that the gunmen and women had 

pre-planned extra weapons and explosives, smuggled into the school during rebuilding work over the summer holidays, and hidden them beneath floorboards. In Florida and I believe in many other states, more and more of these services are 

privatized which is why our state chose to include them in the background requirements. 

In addition to conducting state and national fingerprint based checks, the Florida 

Legislature has now required that we retain these prints and check them against 

incoming arrests so that the school district is immediately made aware if a current 

employee is arrested in Florida, as opposed to waiting for their 5 year recheck. 

Thanks to the funding support of Congress through NCHIP and the support of 

our state, Florida has advanced technology in this arena and our school districts 

who are conducting these checks receive the state and the federal information within 48 hours of submitting the fingerprint. In Florida, we use secure applications via 

the Internet to submit the prints electronically and respond back using the same 

technology. This enables the schools to continue conducting their business of providing services and assuring bus drivers, cafeteria workers and school teachers, are 

hired and in place, while not compromising the safety of the school community. This 

is the direction most states are going. 

There are approximately 39 other states that take advantage, in some form or another, of this technology and are seeing similar advances in facilitating the ease and 

timeliness of these checks. According to the FBI, 79% of the FBI’s total non-criminal 

justice fingerprint submissions are submitted using digital technology that enhances 

the response time and eliminates the need for the paper fingerprint card. 

I mentioned that the use of criminal history information for the non-criminal justice community has seen a tremendous increase over the past few years. In fact, nationally at the FBI, the incoming fingerprints for background checks are now exceeding the incoming fingerprints processed for arrests. In Florida, over the past few 

years we went from 300,000 requests to now 600,000 requests. States see the benefit 

16

of requiring these checks for persons employed in sensitive positions and with vulnerable populations. The availability of technology, the ease in which these checks 

can be processed and the continued improvement in the time it takes to receive a 

response has created a new awareness and interest from states. In fact 45 states 

and the District of Columbia have now enacted statutes requiring federal background checks for education personnel or teacher certification. 

The safety of our children is of paramount importance to all of us. Today that is 

the issue we address. Of course, we all realize that these records have a much greater use and importance. I appreciate the interest you have shown in the state’s perspective on the criminal history record screening process and in the Compact itself 

and I thank you for this opportunity... 

[Attachments to Ms. Uzzell’s statement are located at the end of 

the hearing.] 

Chairman MCKEON. Dr. Dean. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM DEAN, SUPERINTENDENT, FREDERICK COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 

Dr. DEAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Porter, good morning. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to H.R. 2649. As you indicated, my name is William Dean. I am superintendent of schools 

in the Frederick County, Virginia, School District. This is my 7th 

year as superintendent in Frederick County, my 18th year as superintendent, and my 42nd year in the profession. 

But, as I recall back a few years, in 1968, as a brand new high 

school principal in Michigan, I had to hire a number of teachers. 

And in particular, I hired a journalism teacher with impeccable 

credentials. Unfortunately, 6 weeks after school started, that teacher’s photo appeared in the local newspaper. And I was called by one 

of our local ministers who said that the teacher that I had hired, 

let’s call him Mr. Jones, had actually been married by this minister 

in Oregon using the name Mr. Smith. 

Mr. Jones, it turns out, was a bigamist and wanted in two States 

by local authorities. Now, the possibility of that happening 36 years 

later is slim, but not impossible. But it is significantly less possible 

because of safeguards that many States, including Virginia have 

enacted. 

In our local school district of nearly 12,000 students and 2,200 

employees, we follow the Virginia Code on background checks emphatically. All employees are fingerprinted, and using an electronic 

State system that has been merged with the FBI data base, we 

know within 30 minutes to 24 hours whether a potential employee 

has an arrest record in Virginia, or in most places in the United 

States. 

If the system finds a match, we are informed by e-mail that the 

record is being processed. That is code for essentially saying that 

somebody has an arrest record. We process more than 500 a year 

at $37 per request. And perhaps 3 percent of those come back as 

record being processed. 

Generally the only error in the process is a candidate, who may 

embarrassingly confide that they did not complete the application 

honestly. We have two employees in our human resource office operating that system, the full-time equivalency of this task is approximately a quarter of an FTE. 

The Virginia State Police and our local FBI office in Winchester 

verify that not all States contribute to an interstate criminal netVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:15 Dec 05, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\96150 EDUWK PsN: NNIXON
17

work. That not all States do not participate creates a dilemma for 

school districts in all States. 

For example, most of us in Northern Virginia travel to a dozen 

or more States to recruit staff for our growing student enrollment. 

It would be reassuring to know that the States where our candidates come from participate in a national criminal record network so that our background checks are completely, not partially, 

reliable. 

While I agree with the intent and purpose of H.R. 2649, I question whether penalizing State Departments of Education by denying Federal education dollars is the most appropriate way to accomplish this worthwhile legislation. As influential as State Departments and State Boards of Education may be, their influence 

does not extend to directing State law enforcement to participate 

in a statewide Compact of information sharing. 

And while I think my colleagues in the superintendency and the 

boards of education who employ us would all feel better if 

H.R. 2649 were enacted, as school employees and elected officials, 

we also recognize our inability to compel law enforcement to accede 

to the bills requirements. 

So, on closer examination, perhaps the U.S. Department of Education may be the wrong Federal agency to endorse compliance 

with a well-intended piece of legislation. H.R. 2649 is important to 

educators who are asked to ensure that children in the public 

schools are protected from criminals whatever their crime. 

Let’s just be sure we use the right mechanisms to see this legislation to fruition. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dean follows:]

Statement of Dr. William Dean, Superintendent, Frederick County Public 

Schools, Winchester, VA 

Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to HR 2649. My name is Dr. William C. 

Dean and I am Superintendent of Schools in Frederick County, Virginia. This is my 

7th year as superintendent in Frederick County, my 18th year as a superintendent 

and my 42nd year in this profession. 

In 1968, as a brand new high school principal in Michigan, I hired a Journalism 

teacher with impeccable credentials. Six weeks after school started the teacher’s 

photo appeared in the local paper. I was called by a local minister who said the 

teacher I hired—let’s call him Mr. Jones—had actually been married by this minister in Oregon using the name Mr. Smith. Mr. Jones, it turns out, was a bigamist 

and wanted in two states by local authorities. 

The possibility of that happening 36 years later is slim—not impossible—but significantly less possible because of safeguards many states, including Virginia, have 

enacted. 

In our local school district of nearly 12,000 students and 2,200 employees, we follow the Virginia code on background checks emphatically. 

All employees are finger printed and using an electronic state system that has 

been merged with the FBI data base, we know within 30 minutes to 24 hours 

whether a potential employee has an arrest record in Virginia or most places in the 

United States. If the system finds a match, we are informed by e-mail that the 

‘‘Record is being processed.’’ This usually means that someone has an arrest record. 

We process more than 500 a year, and perhaps 3% come back as ‘‘Record is being 

processed.’’ The only error in the process is usually a candidate who embarrassingly 

confides they did not complete the application honestly. Two employees in our 

human resource office operate our system. The full-time equivalency of this task is 

approximately .25. 

The Virginia State Police verify that not all states contribute to an interstate 

criminal record network. That not all states do not participate creates a dilemma 

for school districts in all states. 

18

For example, most of us in northern Virginia travel to a dozen states to recruit 

staff for our growing student enrollment. It would be reassuring to know that the 

states where our candidates come from participate in a national criminal record network so that our background checks are completely, not partially, reliable. 

While I agree with the intent and purpose of HR 2649, I question whether penalizing state departments of education by denying federal education dollars is the 

most appropriate way to accomplish this worthwhile legislation. As influential as 

state departments and state boards of education may be, their influence does not 

extend to directing state law enforcement to participate in a statewide Compact of 

information sharing. 

And while I think my colleagues in the superintendency and the boards of education who employ us would all feel better if HR 2649 were enacted, as school employees and elected officials, we also recognize our inability to compel law enforcement to accede to HR 2649’s requirements. 

So, on closer examination, perhaps the U.S. Department of Education may be the 

wrong federal agency to enforce compliance with a well-intended piece of legislation. 

HR 2649 is important to educators who are asked to ensure that children in the 

public schools are protected from criminals, whatever their crime. Let’s just be sure 

we use the right mechanisms to see this legislation to fruition. 

Mr. PORTER. [presiding.] Thank you very much, Doctor, appreciate it. Chief. 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF BUTCH ASSELIN, FIGHT CRIME: INVEST 

IN KIDS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Chief ASSELIN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today 

on school safety. My name is Butch Asselin. I have been in law enforcement for nearly 30 years. I spent the past 7 years as police 

chief of the Skowhegan Police Department in Maine. 

During the past year I have served as president of the Maine 

Chiefs of Police Association. I am also a member of the anti crime 

group, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. More than 2,000 police chiefs, 

sheriffs, prosecutors and victims of violence from across the country, we have come together to take a hard-nosed look at what really 

works to prevent school and youth violence and keep kids from becoming criminals. 

To help ensure that kids are safe at school, I strongly support 

criminal history background checks on individuals seeking employment in schools. However, today, I would like to focus on a widespread critical safety issue in our Nation’s schools that demands 

the urgent attention of Congress. 

Bullying affects 1 out of 3 children in the 6th through the 10th 

grades, and can lead to violent crime and death. A national survey 

found that nearly 1 in 6 American children in 6th through 10th 

grade, more than 3.2 million children, are victims of bullying each 

year, while 3.7 million bully other children. 

When bullies are allowed to progress through school without 

their intimidating and violent behavior being addressed they often 

become a danger not only to the school but also to the whole community. A survey found out that most bullies were seven times 

more likely to carry weapons to school. 

Furthermore, the more serious bullies were also 3–1/2 times 

more likely to have been in a fight where they sustained injury serious enough to require treatment by a nurse or doctor. Bullying 

is an early warning that bullies may be headed toward more serious antisocial behavior, including violent crime. 

19

A study found that 40 percent of boys who were bullies in grades 

6 through 9 had three or more criminal convictions by the age of 

24. Moreover, victims of repeated bullying can explode in ways that 

threaten not just the bullies, but many others as well. 

Experts from the Secret Service were called in to help develop 

profiles of the Columbine and other school shooters. They found 

that most of the shooters had been bullied before choosing to attack 

their perceived tormentors. The Secret Service experts reported almost three-quarters of the attackers felt persecuted, bullied, threatened, or attacked or injured by others prior to the incident. 

In addition, one study found that boys who were frequently 

bullied were four times more likely to be suicidal, while frequently 

bullied girls were 8 times more likely to be suicidal. 

Fortunately there are programs that are proven to reduce bullying in schools. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program has 

been implemented in several hundred schools in the United States 

and around the world. This program includes a school survey to determine the prevalence of bulling, training for all school personnel, 

a bullying prevention coordinating committee to implement the 

program, school rules prohibiting bullying and appropriate consequences, adequate adult supervisions in specific areas where bullying is likely to take place, including hallways, lunchrooms and 

playgrounds, class meetings to discuss the problem of bullying, and 

meetings with bullies, their parents and school staff and meetings 

with victims, their parents and school staff. 

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program produced a 50 percent 

reduction of bullying in Norway, and a 20 percent reduction when 

it was replicated in South Carolina. There were also lower rates of 

school misbehavior and vandalism, and general delinquency for 

students enrolled in a bullying prevention program, compared to 

students who do not receive the program. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention in the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration have 

recognized the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program as a model 

program. 

Five years ago, the Nation watched in horror as two students 

killed 12 classmates and a teacher before taking their own lives at 

Columbine High School. The Columbine shootings were a shock to 

our collective conscience. Never before had parents, especially in 

quiet suburbs, so questioned their kid’s safety in school. 

Now, 5 years later, school violence continues to occur. In the 

aftermath of Columbine, and other school shootings, America can 

no longer view bullying as simply one of the rights of passage kids 

must endure. Bullying is a ticking time bomb in our schools and 

our society. Before more children are harmed, killed or take their 

own lives, Congress should facilitate the implementation of research proven bullying prevention programs throughout our Nation’s schools. 

I am pleased that Representative John Shimkus, along with Representative Danny Davis, has introduced a bipartisan bullying prevention bill, H.R. 4776, which would amend the Safe and Drug 

Free Schools Act to add several bullying related provisions. This 

bill would encourage schools receiving funding to implement key 

20

components of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. I urge 

Congress to move Representative Shimkus’s bill to enactment. 

This Committee can further help us make us all safer by 

strengthening early childhood education, child abuse, and neglect 

prevention and after school programs. 

Research confirms that law enforcement leaders know from our 

firsthand experience such programs dramatically reduce crime and 

violence. I request that the School and Youth Violence Prevention 

Plan, as well as the Bullying Prevention is Crime Prevention report 

of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids be entered in the hearing’s record. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on how your 

Committee can enhance school safety. I would be happy to answer 

any questions that you might have. 

Mr. PORTER. Thank you very much, Chief, and the full panel. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Asselin follows:]

Statement of Chief Butch Asselin, Chief of Police, Skowhegan Police Department, Skowhegan, Maine, on behalf of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, 

Washington, DC 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on school safety. My name is Butch 

Asselin. I’ve been in law enforcement for nearly thirty years, and I’ve spent the past 

7 years as police chief of the Skowhegan Police Department in Maine. During the 

past year, I served as President of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association. I am also 

a member of the anti-crime group Fight Crime: Invest in Kids—more than 2,000 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, and victims of violence from across the country who 

have come together to take a hard-nosed look at what really works to prevent school 

and youth violence and keep kids from becoming criminals. 

To help ensure that kids are safe at school, I strongly support criminal history 

background checks on individuals seeking employment in schools. However, today, 

I would like to focus on a widespread, critical safety issue in our nation’s schools 

that demands the urgent attention of Congress. Bullying affects one out of three 

children in sixth through tenth grades and can lead to violent crime and death. A 

national survey found that nearly one in six American children in sixth through 

tenth grade—more than 3.2 million children—are victims of bullying each year, 

while 3.7 million bully other children. 

When bullies are allowed to progress through school without their intimidating 

and violent behavior being addressed, they often become a danger not only to the 

school, but also to the whole community. A survey found that the most serious bullies were seven times more likely to carry a weapon to school. Furthermore, the 

more serious bullies were also three-and-a-half times more likely to have been in 

a fight where they sustained an injury serious enough to require treatment by a 

nurse or doctor. Bullying is an early warning that bullies may be headed toward 

more serious antisocial behavior including violent crime. A study found that 40 percent of boys who were bullies in grades six through nine had three or more criminal 

convictions by the age of 24. 

Moreover, victims of repeated bullying can explode in ways that threaten not just 

the bullies but many others as well. Experts from the Secret Service were called 

in to help develop profiles of the Columbine and other school shooters. They found 

that most of the shooters had been bullied before choosing to attack their perceived 

tormentors. The Secret Service experts reported: ‘‘Almost three-quarters of the 

attackers felt persecuted, bullied, threatened, attacked or injured by others prior to 

the incident.’’ In addition, one study found that boys who were frequently bullied 

were four times more likely to be suicidal, while frequently bullied girls were eight 

times more likely to be suicidal. 

Fortunately, there are programs that are proven to reduce bullying in schools. The 

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program has been implemented in several hundred 

schools in the United Sates and around the world. This program includes: a school 

survey to determine the prevalence of bullying; training for all school personnel; a 

bullying prevention coordinating committee to implement the program; school rules 

prohibiting bullying and appropriate consequences; adequate adult supervision of 

specific areas where bullying is likely to take place including hallways, lunchrooms, 

and playgrounds; class meetings to discuss the problem of bullying; and meetings 

21

with bullies, their parents and school staff, and meetings with victims, their parents, and school staff. 

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program produced a 50 percent reduction of bullying in Norway and a 20 percent reduction when it was replicated in South Carolina. There were also lower rates of school misbehavior, vandalism, and general delinquency for the students enrolled in the bullying prevention program compared to 

students who did not receive the program. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration have recognized the Olweus Bullying Prevention approach as a model program. 

Five years ago, the nation watched in horror as two students killed 12 classmates 

and a teacher before taking their own lives at Columbine High School. The Columbine shootings were a shock to our collective conscience. Never before had parents, especially in quiet suburbs, so questioned their kids’ safety in school. Now, five 

years later, school violence continues to occur. In the aftermath of Columbine and 

other school shootings, America can no longer view bullying as simply one of the 

rites of passage kids must endure. Bullying is a ticking time bomb in our schools 

and our society. Before more children are harmed, killed, or take their own lives, 

Congress should facilitate the implementation of research-proven bullying prevention programs throughout our nation’s schools. 

I am pleased that Representative John Shimkus, along with Representative 

Danny Davis, has introduced a bipartisan bullying prevention bill, H.R. 4776, which 

would amend the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act to add several bullying prevention-related provisions. This bill would encourage schools receiving funding to implement key components of the Olweus Bullying Prevention program. I urge Congress 

to move Representative Shimkus’s bill to enactment. 

This Committee can further help make us all safer by strengthening early childhood education, child abuse and neglect prevention, and after-school programs. Research confirms what law enforcement leaders know from our firsthand experience: 

such programs dramatically reduce crime and violence. I request that the School 

and Youth Violence Prevention Plan, as well as the ‘‘Bullying Prevention Is Crime 

Prevention’’ report of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids be entered into this hearing’s 

record. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on how your Committee can 

enhance school safety. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. PORTER. I have numerous questions. And I will submit some 

from other members after today’s hearing. 

First of all, I guess, Barbara, let me comment again that we appreciate you being here. I want to make it clear that because of the 

Clark County School District, we are having this hearing today. 

And we appreciate the district bringing this problem to the U.S. 

Congress. 

And yes, there are areas that need to be adjusted, but it is a 

great start. And thank you very much for being here. 

Specific to Las Vegas, it was mentioned, of course, the challenges 

that we have at home. What challenges does it present to the district as you ask recruits information? Do you find that many recruits then don’t come back for a second interview, or what happens after you ask these specific questions? 

Ms. BELAK. Well, it varies, since we are talking about hiring approximately 1,500 to 2,000 teachers. We probably look closer in the 

neighborhood of 5,000 applicants. So we have just about every end 

of the spectrum that one can imagine. 

Certainly we have some that have been known to call human resources to ask for clarification on some questions, and sometimes 

it is hard to imagine how one can need clarification when the question is: Have you ever been convicted of a crime involving sexual 

misconduct, or words to that effect? 

But, there will sometimes be conversations on the phone, and lo 

and behold, we never hear from that person again. However, there 

22

are unfortunately many other times when the person chooses to answer no to the key questions, only to find out later through fingerprint results, luckily, that the answer no was not necessarily an 

honest answer, and that usually begins a very lengthy process then 

of investigation. Sometimes it is nothing, and sometimes it ends up 

in a dismissal proceeding. 

Mr. PORTER. What has been the reaction to possibly more senior 

teachers that are moving—wish to move there from other States? 

When do you put them through this questioning? Has there been 

a problem with the profession itself or do they encourage this information? 

Ms. BELAK. No. The typical teacher out there is supportive of 

these kinds of efforts, because as I mentioned in my records, any 

time there is a headline about another teacher or support staff person arrested for sexual misconduct, that is something that embarrasses everybody and appalls everybody. 

The good teachers don’t go into the profession to victimize children and to ruin their lives, they go into the profession to help 

them and nurture them, and they don’t want the sexual predators 

in there any more than anyone else does. 

Mr. PORTER. Realizing that being with the home team, I have an 

opportunity to also brag about the district. As an innovative school 

district in the country, again, sixth largest and one of the fastest 

growing, I think Clark County has done a phenomenal job. 

Even from the private sector perspective, if you were recruiting 

2,500 new employees, I don’t care if you are IBM or the Clark 

County School District, there is a major challenge. 

But, the reason we are here today is to elevate the importance 

of this challenge in the classroom, to make sure when we drop our 

kids off we know they are safe. 

And, Barbara, we have heard some pretty diverse opinions this 

morning as to how different States are handling the problem, 

which is really why we are here. But, from some of the testimony, 

it appears that other districts aren’t having the problem that we 

are having in Nevada. 

What do you think is the real crux of the problem? Is there something we are missing here? If Clark County is not getting information, but possibly Florida is, what is happening different in Nevada 

that isn’t happening in Florida? 

Ms. BELAK. Well, if I knew that, we would correct it in Clark 

County. As best we can tell, we are doing everything that we can 

do. In fact, I had included in my written testimony the fact that 

we had met recently with a security firm that does do background 

checks. And as a result of that recent meeting, the president of the 

company concluded in fact in a letter to Dr. Rice, who is our associate superintendent, that we are already doing everything that is 

within our power to try to identify bad apples, if you would, and 

to screen them out at the application process. 

So that is good news for us, particularly coming from a private 

company that would love to sell us its services. But, even though 

we are doing what we can do, like I said, we not only fingerprint 

everyone we hire, we fingerprint people we don’t hire, like the volunteers that work in our classrooms. But it is not enough, because 

people are still getting through. 

23

We don’t know for certain if some of those people are getting 

through because they happen to have come from a State that is not 

a member of Compact, or if there is some other breakdown in the 

process. What we do believe, of course, is that most offenders offend again and again and again and again. 

I don’t believe that they are usually caught the first time. I believe that when they are caught it is beyond the first time. So we 

are trying to take advantage of as many means as possible to get 

as much complete information as possible before we put the offender in a school setting. 

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Barbara. 

Ms. Uzzell, can you explain, in your comments you mentioned 

that sometimes States have better and more information than the 

FBI. Explain that, could you, please? What information do they 

have and how better can we share that information with other 

States? 

Ms. UZZELL. Well, like I said the information is always better 

closest to the source. So States have maybe more complete disposition information, and that information was not submitted back up 

to the FBI, because that may be a duplicative effort on the State 

level. 

Additionally, the FBI may have rejected a fingerprint card that 

was sent to the repository up there because of a quality issue. And 

the State may have accepted that record so, there may be fingerprint rejections that may not be included, although I have to say 

that they are probably small in comparison to numbers, a very low 

percentage. 

And then additional, there is what we call noncriterion offenses. 

Those would be minor offenses, for instance, city ordinances or 

county ordinances, loitering may be one, unfortunately prostitution 

may be one too where a State or an agency arrests under the ordinance rather than a State statute. 

And the FBI is moving now toward accepting those noncriterion 

offenses, but those hadn’t been accepted in the past. 

Mr. PORTER. So are you having similar problems in Florida that 

we are having in Nevada? 

Ms. UZZELL. No. I would have to say I don’t believe that we are. 

Now, I will say that the beauty of the Compact is that the State 

can disseminate on its own State laws. 

So with that, I must say that Florida is an open records State. 

So we disseminate everything. We disseminate juvenile arrests, we 

disseminate arrests alone without conviction information. So every 

information that comes to us either from our own repository or 

from other States, because of our State law, is able to be passed 

on to the school district. 

Mr. PORTER. What can we do through this legislation to help the 

States that don’t have that type of information available? 

Ms. UZZELL. Well, I think the first thing that you hit upon was 

the expansion of the Compact. And from talking to other Compact 

States and non-Compact States, what has traditionally been helpful is the NCHIP money, because in order to become a Compact 

State, there are certain programming issues and regulations and 

requirements that they have to do in order to be able to make their 

repositories respond in the fashion that I had mentioned. 

24

So I think the continued support of NCHIP and CITA and other 

grant monies is a very good way to help States get to that point. 

Education is the key. And as chairman of a Compact council, and 

even my former colleague, who was chairman, we have continued 

to put non-Compact States on different committees, letting them 

see the benefits of being involved in a participatory process where 

you can make these regulations on behalf of the States. It is truly 

a decentralized process. 

Five States have enacted the Compact since 2003. That is a good 

start. And I think we just need to keep encouraging more States 

to become Compact States. 

Mr. PORTER. So do you think that the umbrella of the Compact 

is good? We need to make sure that the other States have, either 

the funding or incentive to use the system as it has been proposed? 

Ms. UZZELL. Yes. I definitely agree with that. I also would suggest, and I would be very willing to help Ms. Belak on this issue, 

but if there were crimes that she was missing in a fingerprint 

check, I would be willing to help analyze what the problem was. 

Because, as I said, I don’t understand why we are not seeing that 

in many other States. Maybe if we took a look and saw where the 

gaps were, we might be able to figure out if there were other problems that we are missing here at this meeting that we could identify to assist her. 

Mr. PORTER. I appreciate your involvement in many statewide 

agencies for children. But what I have discovered in preparing this 

legislation, there is not a lot of information available on the subject 

of students and abuse in the classroom or on the school properties. 

There was one recently done by No Child Left Behind, which I 

think is a start. But it seems to me there is not a whole lot of information being compiled. And I guess as this legislation hopefully 

moves forward in some shape or form, that we get the proper information to help us make these decisions also. 

But I know that you are active in a fast growing State also. So 

you have similar challenges that we have in Nevada. And any help 

would be appreciated. 

Ms. UZZELL. If I may. I would say that the issues that are important to schools from my experience in the school board as well as 

in Florida Department of Law Enforcement is quick information 

back. As I mentioned to you, the technology that we have today allows that information to be available back to the school district 

within 48 hours. 

And I know in Florida, and I am sure in many other school districts, you know when a bus driver needs to be there on that side 

of the road, they can’t be waiting for that background check to 

come back to get that bus driver hired. 

So anything we can do to continue that technology to ease and 

facilitate those background checks is a great stride. 

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. And, Dr. Dean, you mentioned you 

didn’t feel that this type of legislation really is the right mechanism. How would you suggest States that are having challenges 

better find the information they need to make the right choice in 

their teachers? 

Dr. DEAN. I am not sure that I said exactly that it was not the 

right mechanism. I think the legislation is good legislation. My 

25

only concern is punishing education for something that we can’t 

oversee. We have no control over law enforcement or whether other 

agencies which to contribute that information to the Compact. 

I think from our State superintendent down, we all encourage 

and engage in a system now that works for Virginia. But, when we 

go outside Virginia, as I said in my testimony, we may go to as 

many as a dozen or more States to find teachers for our school districts. 

It is the unreliability of that information about someone from another State that troubles us. So the law—sorry, the bill, is a wonderful mechanism. The difficulty I have is only the punishment of 

withholding Federal dollars from departments of education in the 

event a State doesn’t join the Compact. 

Mr. PORTER. And I think that is well said, Doctor, because I 

would concur, that in the initial writing of the language, that was 

one alternative. 

What I would like to ask is what can we do to help to provided 

incentives to get the districts and actually the States and the districts get involved in the Compact? What would you suggest? 

Dr. DEAN. I think Ms. Uzzell’s comments in terms of engaging 

more and more non-Compact States in the activities of the Compact to begin to see the advantages of it, have them involved in 

some of the strengths of this, have them involved in some of the 

problemsolving of the Compact. 

I think, certainly, a key issue would be the bringing together of 

a variety of law enforcement groups and school people, to see how 

they can work together to make this work. 

Because, unless they come together to work together on solving 

this, there will be suspicion about why is it you want my information, how will you use my information, and I am not interested in 

sharing it if I don’t feel as though it is going to be used in a profitable, helpful way. 

Mr. PORTER. So you feel comfortable you are able to get the information you need right now? You are not having a problem? 

Dr. DEAN. I wouldn’t suggest we are not having problems. I 

mean, the scale that we work on is nothing compared to Clark 

County or Loudoun County, for instance, in Virginia. But for our 

school division, which is large but not as large as certainly these 

mega districts, I would suggest that our difficulty only comes when 

we find that—if, for instance, we recruit a teacher out of Indiana, 

and Indiana does not contribute information to the FBI, or Indiana 

doesn’t provide, Ohio doesn’t, Michigan doesn’t, provide information 

to a source that we can readily access to determine background, 

hiring Virginia teachers in Virginia works well, because of the 

State law that we follow. 

Mr. PORTER. Yes. And historically hiring from within the community you have a better understanding. Again, with a fast-growing 

State, our university system has a hard time keeping up with the 

demand. You know, we are growing 6, 7,000 people a month. Add 

to that the number of students and—you have heard that discussion. 

And, Dr. Dean, I will comment also. And the school districts and 

the school professionals get blamed for most every social problem 

there is. And I appreciate your comments that we also need to look 

26

at law enforcement to make sure that they are compiling the right 

information. 

And on that, Chief, I appreciate your comments on the bullying 

and what is happening in the classroom. Have you seen any problem with any of the other discussions we have had today with any 

folks that you know in your communities? 

Chief ASSELIN. Well, with regards to the background checks, I 

was talking to Dr. Dean. The information that we receive, I think 

as between police departments, or between the repository in Maine, 

which is the State Bureau of Identification, I think is far more concise or accurate than what the school districts would receive. 

I think they would receive conviction data only, and not arrests 

as it may be. I don’t know a remedy for that. In fact, it may have 

changed. I know that Jeff Harman, who was a former member—

who was the lieutenant colonel of the State police worked hard on 

this system, and inroads are still being made to make it work better. I think that we have some time to go before it is perfect, but 

we are working on it continuously. 

On a local level, I am seeing—I was seeing resistance. My own 

daughter is a teacher. And she resisted. But she—obviously she 

wanted a job, she did comply. We had one teacher to sort of circumvent the system came to me and wanted me to take her fingerprints rather than the State police who was doing it at the time. 

But by now we have gone over the hump, it has been a couple 

of years now. And, you know, I think it is working well. The processing custodians, volunteers, aides. And, yes there are a few that 

have failed to divulge their criminal history and have been terminated. We try to work very well with the schools in my area. 

But, when school superintendents call me and say, Butch, what 

can you tell me about Mr. Jones, we are very reluctant to provide 

that information at a local level, only because we are not sure that 

the information is always accurate. There could be some mistakes 

made on the person who inputs the data into the system. 

You know, they might put an incorrect disposition. So we don’t 

rely on that. We always refer them to the State Bureau of Identification, which does work. But we don’t—but again, people that are 

arrested are not necessarily guilty of anything. 

But, at the same token, those people that are arrested, just say 

for a sexual-related offense, may have the indictment dismissed or 

the charges dismissed because of the age of the victim, they are not 

willing to testify. So I can see a balancing act being done here to 

get the information out, but make sure that we are not unjustly labeling someone as a predator or someone who has—may have been 

at one time made a mistake. 

But, anyway, I think we are making headway in Maine. 

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. 

Well, what I have heard so far, if I can summarize some suggestions. We should look at possibly expanding the Compact, in individual districts, to include maybe contractors, those that do renovation, or other services. We should look at that. Make sure that that 

is consistent. 

Encourage, not penalize, as far as the Act itself, would help these 

other 29 States find a way to—financially if they are having a challenge, to take care of it, or at least have the incentive in place, 

27

whether it be in the form of grant dollars or something else to encourage. 

And I sense that there is a consensus that the Compact is still 

a good direction to go. As long as it is—the other 29 States have 

the ability to be involved. Also, I am going to encourage that we 

do additional study to get some additional information as we move 

forward with the legislation. 

So I appreciate everyone’s testimony today. Is there anything 

else that you would like to add? 

Ms. UZZELL. At the risk of doing this, but I feel like I do need 

to correct an issue, because I think I have heard several times people say that some States don’t contribute their fingerprints to the 

FBI. And all 50 States do contribute. There are probably three 

States, it is a very complex process. I actually thought how I was 

going to do this in 5 minutes or less. 

But, the—the III is a pointer index system. III is a fingerprint 

based system that the FBI has. FBI went to III, because then they 

could point to an individual’s record and reach out to the States 

and grab all of the arrests that State had for that individual that 

was indexed—their fingerprints have been submitted. 

There are only three States that I am aware of that are not III 

participants, but those States still take their fingerprint cards of 

arrested individuals and submit it up to the FBI. So when you do 

a query, you do get information from all 50 States. You probably 

are missing some records that are either, as I said rejected or noncriterion offenses, or if some local agency never sent that card up 

there. 

But, I think that it would be a mistake to walk away, not thinking that all 50 States are submitting their criminal history information. The Compact allows that dissemination to be more complete. But the system we have in place now is a very effective system. And for the most part, it captures what we are looking for. 

The Compact is a way to enhance and further that decentralization that was started back in 1978 when III went into effect. So 

I just feel the need to clarify that. And then again, I would like to 

offer, as chairman of the Compact council, any services I can to do 

some good analysis on these records that are brought up, and help 

you, Congressman Porter, be able to bring that information with 

real factual analysis of what we are missing. 

If there is something that we are not aware of, we need to fix 

it. And finally, the other thing I will just say is that as the chairman of the Compact, a member of that council, we are so appreciative that you have taken the time to think about the Compact 

as a mechanism. We thought we were really our own little venture 

out there pushing this issue. So I really commend you for recognizing the value of this and having this hearing. 

Mr. PORTER. Thank you very much. Anyone else like to add? 

Ms. BELAK. Thank you. You had asked me earlier about where 

some things possibly go wrong. And do I want the Committee to 

be aware that we do not believe that passage of H.R. 2649 will 

solve all of the problems of the Nation. 

Certainly we have had some problems where we found out that 

the employee had encountered similar misconduct in other districts, but that misconduct might not have risen to the level of a 

28

crime. So it is something that we would hope and expect other 

school districts to share with us, particularly through confidential 

references, but for some reason they do not. 

We can’t turn to Congress to solve that problem, we have to turn 

to the States and the boards of education to work on that. But 

where we do turn to Congress for assistance is to help us make 

sure that the information that we have that is relevant to criminal 

background is made available to every school district that asks for 

employment purposes for the people in our schools. 

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. 

Chief ASSELIN. I would just make a quick comment. When police 

departments share information between each other, it is intelligence information. And it may involve actions of a person where 

he hasn’t been charged, but it is questionable behavior. 

I think the law prevents us, I think, from disseminating that information to schools. I think we need to look at opening up the portal, so to speak, to be allowed to share that information with school 

administrators. For instance, if a juvenile was to commit a crime 

of violence outside of the school district area, we can’t share the information with the school district. But if he commits, the same juvenile was to commit a crime on school property, we can talk about 

it freely with the school administrator. 

But to expand that further to adults, I think the police departments have a great deal of information in our files, in our computer 

systems, database about the particular activity, and being able to 

have the freedom to share that, my—because I think we shouldn’t 

rely totally on criminal history checks. I think pick up the phone 

and, you know, doing background checks, a thorough background 

check will bring up a lot of this information, and probably the first 

people that should be contacting is the police department where 

this person once resided in. 

Mr. PORTER. I know we spent a lot of time today talking about 

criminal activity, sexual predators. I do appreciate also that whole 

other area of concern, especially after the catastrophe and the crises in Russia and what is happening around the world. 

And I know that this Committee is going to spend additional 

time looking at safety in the classroom. But, as we look at the 

world since September 11th, it has changed a lot of things that we 

do. But, as parents we also trust in our local governments and our 

school districts to make sure that they take every step available. 

And with that, I again want to applaud the districts and certainly Clark County, but those folks that are here today for your 

concerns and your insights, because I can’t imagine the pain of a 

parent that would have a son or daughter that was hurt while at 

school. And what pain that can cause for a child in his whole lifetime, in that area where they trust their teacher and trust their 

community. 

So, again, I want thank you all for being here for your testimony. 

I appreciate your insights and your written testimony, and note 

that there will be opportunity to submit additional testimony. So 

thank you all for being here. And thank you again for your input. 

The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

29

Additional Statement of Donna Uzzell, Submitted for the Record


96150.001
30


96150.002
31


96150.003
32


96150.004
33


96150.005
34


96150.006
35


96150.007
36


96150.008
37


96150.009
38


96150.010
39

National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Signatories 

Montana 

Georgia 

Nevada 

Florida 

Colorado 

Iowa 

Connecticut 

South Carolina 

Arkansas 

Kansas 

Oklahoma 

Maine 

Alaska 

New Jersey 

Minnesota 

Arizona 

Tennessee 

North Carolina 

New Hampshire 

Missouri 

Ohio 


96150.011
40


96150.012
41

List of States and Territories Submitting Civil User Fee Fingerprints 

Electronically 

Alabama 

Alaska (Compact State) 

Arizona (Compact State) 

California 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Florida (Compact State) 

Hawaii 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Kansas (Compact State) 

Louisiana 

Maine (Compact State) 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota (Compact State) 

Mississippi 

Missouri (Compact State) 

Montana (Compact State) 

Nebraska 

New Jersey (Compact State) 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina (Compact State) 

North Dakota 

Ohio (Compact State) 

Oklahoma (Compact State) 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Dakota 


96150.013
42

Tennessee (Compact State) 

Texas 

Utah 

US Virgin Islands 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wyoming 

Compact States That Do Not Submit Civil User Fee Fingerprints 

Electronically 

Arkansas 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Georgia 

Iowa 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

South Carolina

Æ