State job applicants' backgrounds must be checked

Governor Matt Blunt announced today that the three candidates for a vacant seat on the Missouri Supreme Court would have to fill out a 111-question form:

"Missourians expect their governor to thoroughly and thoughtfully examine the experience and qualifications of each of the candidates for the Supreme Court and this is part of our exhaustive review of their credentials," said the Governor's Chief Counsel Henry Herschel. "We also believe that the process of selecting a Supreme Court judge should not be secret."
While you can't blame the governor for not wanting to know as much as possible about those who hope to sit on our state's highest judicial panel, it would be nice if he would require his state departments to ask one question, or to conduct at least a cursory background check of those who want to work in state agencies and deal with Missourians' personal information.

Two prime examples can be found in the ongoing saga of state workers who have become involved in fraud and identity theft involving information that came from state records.

As noted in the July 31 Turner Report, one of those who has been charged in connection with the case is Krystal Stephens, a former employee of the Missouri Department of Revenue's Division of Taxation.

During a statement she made to federal and state officials, Ms. Stephens admitted to providing personal information from state files to her sister and to Robin Deardorff so they could buy cellphones to use to talk to their prisoner boyfriends. Ms. Stephens said, "She said she didn't use many, but she shouldn't have used any and it was partly my fault, but I don't work there anymore and don't plan to and would work there in that environment and put myself in my predicament any more. I want my high school diploma and to do hair."

Since when does the Missouri Department of Revenue hire people to handle sensitive information who do not even have high school diplomas? Did anyone even ask Ms. Stephens questions about her educational background before she was hired?

And, of course, there is Ms. Deardorff herself. Apparently, no background check was conducted on her either. As I pointed out in previous posts, Ms. Deardorff, who was employed by the Missouri Department of Social Services, never should have been hired in the first place, and if anyone had taken only a few moments to check her background, she would have been turned away.

It only took me five minutes to find enough information on case.net to indicate Mrs. Deardorff should never have been hired for the position, the kind of check that state bureaucrats apparently do not bother to make.

A simple check of case.net shows eight listings for Mrs. Deardorff, including seven criminal charges. The oldest charge, dating back to 1993, was for misdemeanor stealing, for which she received five days in jail and was placed on probation.

Two years later, Mrs. Deardorff received 30 days in jail for endangering the welfare of a child, not exactly the type of activity that seems in keeping with the Family Support Division of the Department of Social Services.

The remainder of the criminal charges involve annual charges of driving while revoked from 2003 through 2006, with the last three times involving the use of electronic shackles in lieu of jail time.

In 2005, she also pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of passing a bad check.

It would not have taken long for a background check to uncover the news that Mrs. Deardorff's husband (and co-defendant) Clayton Deardorff, is an unwilling guest in a Missouri state penitentiary.

I conducted a case.net check on Mrs. Deardorff's maiden name, Robin Sidney, and found more information that should have prevented her from ever being the recipient of taxpayer money

On July 13, 1995, she pleaded guilty to misdemeanor stealing charges and was placed on supervised probation for two years. This was the second time she had pleaded guilty to a stealing charge.

How many more Robin Deardorffs and Krystal Stephenses are on the state payroll, handling sensitive information? Perhaps our governor should take some of those 111 questions he is directing toward our Supreme Court finalists and ask them of others who want to receive government paychecks.