Jasper is Open... Crumedy leaving for FB Travis/Toby Foreman hired

[pine curtain]

10 hours ago, mat said:

He didn’t think twice about cutting him. Right move.

Seems like he did not think twice when he hired him.......

[pine curtain]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Didn't have anything to say about his hiring mistake......

[2wedge]

It's a bit unfair to scrutinize Toby about this hire and not do the same to each of the other HC/AD who have hired him over the past several years while these same issues were present. Bass hired him a year ago at HJ, and several other districts in the years before. Clearly, it's a systemic problem that has permeated all of these districts in the area so trying to paint Foreman as the primary bad guy just because of the most recent issue seems a bit like recency bias. If social media is to be believed, the issue with Peveto and the young girl was a pretty well-known secret around HJ and Peveto's wife was the athletic secretary and Bass was in charge. 

[89Falcon]

For clarification: schools run a background check from the DPS database. If that comes back "clear", the school check references. Former employers are only technically allowed to provide 1. dates of employment 2. eligible for rehire yes/no 3. they may also provide safety info for DOT sensitive positions. 

Anything beyond the above listed information can expose the former employer to legal trouble. If they reveal unsubstantiated or unverified rumor type information that prevents a former employee from being hired, they can be subject to lawsuits. 

[SmashMouth]

6 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

For clarification: schools run a background check from the DPS database. If that comes back "clear", the school check references. Former employers are only technically allowed to provide 1. dates of employment 2. eligible for rehire yes/no 3. they may also provide safety info for DOT sensitive positions. 

Anything beyond the above listed information can expose the former employer to legal trouble. If they reveal unsubstantiated or unverified rumor type information that prevents a former employee from being hired, they can be subject to lawsuits. 

Not necessarily the case. If you're a prospective employee and you sign an "Employment Information Release" or "Authorization for Release of Information" with a prospective employer so they can vet you (pretty common practice these days), the document gives past employers explicit written permission to share details about your work history. It also acts as a liability release, protecting the previous company from lawsuits (such as defamation claims) for the information they provide.

[89Falcon]

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

Not necessarily the case. If you're a prospective employee and you sign an "Employment Information Release" or "Authorization for Release of Information" with a prospective employer so they can vet you (pretty common practice these days), the document gives past employers explicit written permission to share details about your work history. It also acts as a liability release, protecting the previous company from lawsuits (such as defamation claims) for the information they provide.

The release authorizes the new employer to conduct a background check. It does not release a "former employer" to say things that are confidential outside of what was identified. In the event that a former employer provides unsubstantiated (rumor based or opinion) information that prevents a person from getting hired there is exposure regardless of any signed document.  

[BBtater984]

15 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Not necessarily the case. If you're a prospective employee and you sign an "Employment Information Release" or "Authorization for Release of Information" with a prospective employer so they can vet you (pretty common practice these days), the document gives past employers explicit written permission to share details about your work history. It also acts as a liability release, protecting the previous company from lawsuits (such as defamation claims) for the information they provide.

You can't argue with falcon. He or she is always right. He or she will always get the last word.

[SmashMouth]

16 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

The release authorizes the new employer to conduct a background check. It does not release a "former employer" to say things that are confidential outside of what was identified. In the event that a former employer provides unsubstantiated (rumor based or opinion) information that prevents a person from getting hired there is exposure regardless of any signed document.  

I'm sorry sir, you are incorrect on this one. I do this for a living. I'll keep the explanation as short as possible, but as long as your replies as the former employer are fact-based and not purposefully inflammatory, you can relay certain info about a previous employee to a prospective employer. Especially if the prospect in question has signed a release.

Chapter 103 of the Texas Labor Code protects from defamation liability an employer who releases information about a current or former employee to a prospective new employer, unless "the information disclosed was known by that employer to be false at the time the disclosure was made or that the disclosure was made with malice or in reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the information disclosed."

Follow my guidelines, and it will serve you well:

Release only factual information

Supply Only What Is Requested

Tell the Truth

Avoid Inflammatory Terms

Use a Written Release Form

 

 

[Bulldogs92]

9 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

I'm sorry sir, you are incorrect on this one. I do this for a living. I'll keep the explanation as short as possible, but as long as your replies as the former employer are fact-based and not purposefully inflammatory, you can relay certain info about a previous employee to a prospective employer. Especially if the prospect in question has signed a release.

Chapter 103 of the Texas Labor Code protects from defamation liability an employer who releases information about a current or former employee to a prospective new employer, unless "the information disclosed was known by that employer to be false at the time the disclosure was made or that the disclosure was made with malice or in reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the information disclosed."

Follow my guidelines, and it will serve you well:

Release only factual information

Supply Only What Is Requested

Tell the Truth

Avoid Inflammatory Terms

Use a Written Release Form

 

 

This is basic HR protocol and is correct. In that position, you absolutely cannot expose the entity you work for.

[PhatMack19]

Cornell?!?  🤔

[AggiesAreWe]

6 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

Cornell?!?  🤔

I am being told he is coming out of retirement for this one season until a hire can be made next year.

He will be the DC if school board approves retire rehire. School district will have to pay at least 16% of his retirement plus his salary (whatever that will be) and will have to pay $500+ towards his retirement insurance.

For one season I think that can be money well spent. Wouldn't recommend it for multiple years.

[Tiger33]

18 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I am being told he is coming out of retirement for this one season until a hire can be made next year.

He will be the DC if school board approves retire rehire. School district will have to pay at least 16% of his retirement plus his salary (whatever that will be) and will have to pay $500+ towards his retirement insurance.

For one season I think that can be money well spent. Wouldn't recommend it for multiple years.

I was just told can’t believe it

[89Falcon]

2 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

I'm sorry sir, you are incorrect on this one. I do this for a living. I'll keep the explanation as short as possible, but as long as your replies as the former employer are fact-based and not purposefully inflammatory, you can relay certain info about a previous employee to a prospective employer. Especially if the prospect in question has signed a release.

Chapter 103 of the Texas Labor Code protects from defamation liability an employer who releases information about a current or former employee to a prospective new employer, unless "the information disclosed was known by that employer to be false at the time the disclosure was made or that the disclosure was made with malice or in reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the information disclosed."

Follow my guidelines, and it will serve you well:

Release only factual information

Supply Only What Is Requested

Tell the Truth

Avoid Inflammatory Terms

Use a Written Release Form

 

 

Read my last sentence in the comment you quoted. 

[Bulldogs92]

1 hour ago, Tiger33 said:

I was just told can’t believe it

Me either. The thought of that man wearing Jasper colors is crazy, but I love it.