Is city management negligent if they fail to disclose to the public the presence of  city employees who are registered sex offenders assigned to work at city sponsored events?

A Fox in the Hen House

In this entry, I will not be addressing the intimate, almost romantic relationship between special interests and city officials. Instead, I will be demonstrating solid waste management’s violation of the public trust by withholding pertinent information about a registered sex offender, in their employ, from school administrators and the parents of children who attended a recycling day event in 2011. This event is held annually at the City of Laredo Landfill on Hwy 359.  The event is designed to be fun for children while teaching them the importance of recycling. The festivities are open to a limited number of schools who are invited to bring elementary and middle school children to the facility for a tour of the landfill /recycling areas, have lunch, meet representatives of environmental agencies, and participate in contests for chances to win prizes. In November 2011, solid waste management failed to notify the schools wishing to participate that a solid waste employee was convicted of indecency with a child by exposure and obligated by law to register as a sex offender. Further, management failed to disclose that this employee would be at the facility during the hours the school children would be participating in the recycle day festivities.

A  Lapse in Judgment or Damage Control?

            Prior to the event in 2011, several supervisors expressed their concern about this employee’s presence being inappropriate; given the target audience were children. However, department management responded that the employee would not be an active participant and would have no contact with any children. Further, management asserted the offender’s parole officer was consulted and fore saw no conflict with the terms of this person’s parole and his presence at this event; so long as he remained away from the children. This employee was then assigned to answer phones in the customer service office while the children ate their lunches in the employee lounge. The children and he were separated only by a single door.I can verify the offender stayed away from the children as a group; however, I cannot verify that no individual child might have experienced coincidental contact with this person. I do not believe appropriate steps were implemented to avoid unintended, coincidental, or accidental contact between children and the person in question.

            I have never understood why solid waste management would create such a huge liability for themselves and this employee. Further, I cannot understand how a parole officer would reason such a situation is not a conflict of parole terms and basically an acceptable idea. Perhaps solid waste management lied to us and never spoke to a parole officer in order to maintain silence on the issue; thus, avoiding bad press. In reality, there were many better ways to have dealt with this situation. The best solution would require that this employee use a vacation day and avoid all controversy by not physically being present. It is odd to my way of thinking that the employee, himself, would not possess the foresight and good sense to remove his presence from this situation through his own cognizance.

Do Parents Have A Right To Know?

            The purpose of this entry is not to punish the offender beyond what the law has deemed his just deserts. All people, regardless of their backgrounds, have the right to earn a living and I do not begrudge him that right. However, my point is solid waste management was negligent by not divulging this information to the schools, and equally negligent in creating this conflict in the first place by not removing the employee in question from the equation. In either case, solid waste management was remiss by not providing some form of a disclaimer warning school administrators of the possible, inadvertent contact a child may have with this employee. The willful concealment of this vital information denied parents the ability to withhold or grant permission for their child to attend this event because all the known facts regarding this event and the attending personnel were not disclosed.

            I contend parents had a right to know that such a person would be present at this event in 2011. If parents have a right to know, do sponsors who are supplying food, volunteers, services, and prizes have a right to know as well. I believe they do. If such information is withheld from a sponsor, does it make them appear to be negligent by association? I believe it does. The disclosure of this information likely never happened because such honesty, at least in solid waste management’s estimation, would have sabotaged their efforts to perpetuate their propaganda, obtain sponsorship, and effectively nullifies the recycling coordinator’s position as necessary.

Besides Solid Waste Management, Who Else Knew?

            I, as a parent, was greatly disturbed by the negligence solid waste demonstrated in handling such a delicate issue. Feeling disillusioned and disgusted, I attempted to notify the public of what I witnessed. I wrote an anonymous letter a day after the event detailing the information I relayed above; along with the employee’s name to verify it on the DPS website. I made copies and sent them, via the U.S. postal service, to the Mayor’s office, the City Manager’s office, the City Attorney’s office, LISD public information officer, Mary Help of Christian Catholic School, and the Archdiocese of Laredo. In January of 2012, an administrator from Mary Help of Christian called solid waste to verify that a registered sex offender had been at the facility on the same date and time as their students. I was still disappointed that Mary Help of Christian, at least to my knowledge, did not relay this information to the affected students’ parents. Since this event in 2011, Mary Help of Christian has not attended anymore solid waste events. Also disappointing is that, to my understanding, no one else ever enquired about the authenticity of my assertions. Of course, the local media would not help me, I asked and they refused, unless I agreed to an on camera interview. Since I did mail the letter anonymously, I cannot verify that all parties received a copy of the letter. I am sure this is quite a convenient fact to those parties.

Where do we stand now?

            Solid waste did approve a day off for this employee during the 2012 recycling event, and I hope they do the same for the event in 2013. However, they were still unwilling to divulge information about this employee to schools and parents of children attending other tours of the landfill/recycling facilities. Sadly, during this past summer, July 2013, several field trips for children were arranged to tour the landfill/recycling facility. While I do not recollect the names of any schools which attended this past summer, it is my understanding a head start program from Webb County did attend. Given this information, it is apparent the department remains negligent in disclosing this information.. How sad it is that solid waste management still chooses to create a liability where none should exist.

            In closing, I want to make it clear, as a former administrator, that I believe registered sex offenders deserve a certain degree of privacy in the workplace. However, I also believe that this privacy should not be extended to them when their workplace becomes directly involved in activities which specifically place their privacy at odds with the safety of the public and the very demographic their registration is designed to protect, our children.

 As usual, if anyone wishes to contact me, they can do so at darrell.mills@yahoo.com. I do not know if parents have any legal recourse since almost two years have passed. However, if any parents decide to seek legal counsel, I would be available to their attorneys to make statements and identify in detail the parties directly involved.