Child porn found on MVD worker's comp...

Child porn found on MVD worker's computers

There are 32 comments on the KOAT-TV story from Dec 6, 2012, titled Child porn found on MVD worker's computers. In it, KOAT-TV reports that:

A federal complaint states that authorities found more than 7,000 child porn images and videos on Vandemeer's computers.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KOAT-TV.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Eys so hendsum!”

Since: Jun 09

Ol' Juarez

#21 Dec 7, 2012
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
If there are any of those manner of contracts still about, they are few and far between.
Going thru it over again can be explained by following the money. Someone is making out quite well from doing the same check over and over again, what few are ever really done.
Oh I expect the ACLU most certainly would have a problem w/ BG checks for all temp employees.
I know how you feel about the ACLU and I strongly disagree with you about that. Background checks are done routinely, along with drug testing for employment. I can't even begin to count the number of times that I have had to be fingerprinted or background check done for employment. I think that it is wasteful though that it has to be done with each agency. Wrong again CD, you have to get them done when required. It isn't just a local check either. If they don't get the results from you background check, you don't work.

“Eys so hendsum!”

Since: Jun 09

Ol' Juarez

#22 Dec 7, 2012
Bluntly Spoken wrote:
Something very fishy here, I read this story today on KOB and now it has been totally removed.
It clearly said a state employee had thousands of child porn found on his work computer.
Granted at times news services rush to be the first to report things but why totally remove it instead of making corrections as they normally do?
Another worry and one which so far the state has not said they are researching is he had access to every single drivers license and the personal infor. He could easily have stolen a lot of it to pass on to other molesters he knows.
My gut feeling here is the state asked KOB to remove it to CYA.
Today after I saw your post I asked P&M to check to see if it was in the Journal, nothing either. It had also been removed from yesterday's story. A check to see if he had been arrested showed he was not in custody, and apparently not even booked into MDC. I agree, something doesn't add up!

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#23 Dec 8, 2012
fmer505-1951 wrote:
<quoted text>I know how you feel about the ACLU and I strongly disagree with you about that. Background checks are done routinely, along with drug testing for employment. I can't even begin to count the number of times that I have had to be fingerprinted or background check done for employment. I think that it is wasteful though that it has to be done with each agency. Wrong again CD, you have to get them done when required. It isn't just a local check either. If they don't get the results from you background check, you don't work.
ACLU - in this instance I think they may be right if they oppose ~some~ of the issues in general. No, I don't care for them but even a squirrel finds a nut now and then.

BG checks - Some entities do, some do not, or are extremely lax in doing so. At least they were in the past. Perhaps this has changed as of late. I agree it is wasteful to do multiple checks if (for example), once for some fore known time span should suffice. I presume they are all checking for the same things so why repeat? Fingerprints are not going to change. Arrest records can though.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#24 Dec 8, 2012
fmer505-1951 wrote:
<quoted text>Today after I saw your post I asked P&M to check to see if it was in the Journal, nothing either. It had also been removed from yesterday's story. A check to see if he had been arrested showed he was not in custody, and apparently not even booked into MDC. I agree, something doesn't add up!
Interesting indeed! Seems the only local reference is that for KOAT(Ch7) which is linked to in the title of this thread.

“Eys so hendsum!”

Since: Jun 09

Ol' Juarez

#25 Dec 8, 2012
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
ACLU - in this instance I think they may be right if they oppose ~some~ of the issues in general. No, I don't care for them but even a squirrel finds a nut now and then.
BG checks - Some entities do, some do not, or are extremely lax in doing so. At least they were in the past. Perhaps this has changed as of late. I agree it is wasteful to do multiple checks if (for example), once for some fore known time span should suffice. I presume they are all checking for the same things so why repeat? Fingerprints are not going to change. Arrest records can though.
I think that at anytime you are working a government job, whether as a temp or permanent employee a background check should be mandatory. Anytime you work with children, or the disabled a background check is mandatory.
You are right, arrest records do change, that is why some agencies do mini background checks on its employees, just like they do random UA's for drugs.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#26 Dec 8, 2012
fmer505-1951 wrote:
<quoted text>I think that at anytime you are working a government job, whether as a temp or permanent employee a background check should be mandatory. Anytime you work with children, or the disabled a background check is mandatory.
You are right, arrest records do change, that is why some agencies do mini background checks on its employees, just like they do random UA's for drugs.
I'm not sure I'd lean towards BG checks for any government job, but certainly some, and the same for non-government jobs too. I'm not speaking of the very obvious ones, police, fire etc.

As an aside, I note there is much brouhaha brewing over an MDC guard doing medical mary-j. Certainly one issue well worth studying from a safety & liability point of view - for both prisoners AND the employee.

“Eys so hendsum!”

Since: Jun 09

Ol' Juarez

#27 Dec 8, 2012
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure I'd lean towards BG checks for any government job, but certainly some, and the same for non-government jobs too. I'm not speaking of the very obvious ones, police, fire etc.
As an aside, I note there is much brouhaha brewing over an MDC guard doing medical mary-j. Certainly one issue well worth studying from a safety & liability point of view - for both prisoners AND the employee.
I do lean toward ALL government employees having background checks. If they don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem.
I missed that one as it seems that at least monthly there is something happening over at MDC with the guards. They are hired to keep an eye on the inmates, but who is keeping an eye on them?

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#28 Dec 8, 2012
fmer505-1951 wrote:
<quoted text>I do lean toward ALL government employees having background checks. If they don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem.
I missed that one as it seems that at least monthly there is something happening over at MDC with the guards. They are hired to keep an eye on the inmates, but who is keeping an eye on them?
The inmates, remember their all sleeping together!

“Eys so hendsum!”

Since: Jun 09

Ol' Juarez

#29 Dec 8, 2012
Bluntly Spoken wrote:
<quoted text>
The inmates, remember their all sleeping together!
Well, unfortunately in many cases it is true.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#30 Dec 9, 2012
fmer505-1951 wrote:
<quoted text>I do lean toward ALL government employees having background checks. If they don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem.
I missed that one as it seems that at least monthly there is something happening over at MDC with the guards. They are hired to keep an eye on the inmates, but who is keeping an eye on them?
My disagreement w/ all gov jobs is the the necessity. In a great many cases it really isn't warranted because many are not in sensitive positions where it matters. If someone has a criminal history and paid their debt to society, at what point are they eligible or not eligible for employment with the gov (any form of it)? I can see some instances but I can see some real problems in this too. All it does when all inclusive (IMO) is drive the cost of employment up and is really symbolic in nature at best.

A don't advocate crime by any means but as we add new laws, we convict more people of various crimes thereby increasing the ranks of the 'unemployable' for want of a better term. At what point do we revisit this scenario?

“Eys so hendsum!”

Since: Jun 09

Ol' Juarez

#31 Dec 9, 2012
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
My disagreement w/ all gov jobs is the the necessity. In a great many cases it really isn't warranted because many are not in sensitive positions where it matters. If someone has a criminal history and paid their debt to society, at what point are they eligible or not eligible for employment with the gov (any form of it)? I can see some instances but I can see some real problems in this too. All it does when all inclusive (IMO) is drive the cost of employment up and is really symbolic in nature at best.
A don't advocate crime by any means but as we add new laws, we convict more people of various crimes thereby increasing the ranks of the 'unemployable' for want of a better term. At what point do we revisit this scenario?
All positions with the government should have background checks. If you have an infraction, and dues paid, it doesn't exclude you from employment. It does NOT drive up cost, contrary to what you think. Say someone has been convicted of a DWI, and hasn't had another one in 3 years, that person would be able to operate a government vehicle. Say the guy that has had 3 DWI's in two years, do you want that person operating a government vehicle? What about the person caught 6 months prior with drugs? Would you want that person operating dangerous machinery? What about the child predator? Would you want him working in a place where children are? They all paid their debt. Background checks don't exclude someone from employment, but it does let the employer know where that person would best be suited to work, and how to safeguard the population.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#32 Dec 9, 2012
CD & Frmer,

Both of your last postings have valid points.

I tend to agree with Frmer on how she brings up the issues of DWI, drugs, child predator etc.

If I had known about one of my employees in my other business in CA I would not have given him keys to a vehicle nor made him a lead man.

Funny thing is when I had him put on the company insurance they too failed to pick up on his DWI and jail time.

Lucky me he was ok, never drank on the job nor got into any accidents or tickets.

I thought auto insurance companies automatically ran DMV/MVD checks on drivers.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bernalillo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Today I Saw (Nov '09) 41 min fmer505-1951 62,237
Good Old Days 2 (Apr '10) 47 min fmer505-1951 113,086
Ashley Furniture good or bad? (May '10) 55 min Joaquin 131
News PED takes over Albuquerque charter schoola s fi... 1 hr Trecia 6
News Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) 1 hr Eathan 6,897
Is Gary Johnson Just a Smidgen Gay? (Aug '11) 1 hr Francia 46
News U-Haul stolen in Albuquerque during family's cr... 1 hr Face the facts 14

Bernalillo Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bernalillo Mortgages