CA - Librarian Fired for Reporting Child *advertiser censored*

"Ms. Biesterfeld received an evaluation following three months of her employment and received an overall rating of 5 on a scale of 10," it states.


As per their rating formula: a 5 "is reasonable and consistent with normal expectations of proficiency"

What I find interesting is that you jumped to a ton of conclusions on this case without even a mediocre investigation of the facts.
 
I will agree with your variables.... BUT going on what the media printed is all we can really do.
There is no indication or reason to believe this women lied yet she does have proof that the police arrested him and she was fired..
That is enough proof IMO at least for a chat forum.

At face value there is something wrong with anyone who would turn a blind eye too child *advertiser censored*.

I wholeheartedly agree. Anyone who turns a blind eye to that garbage is a poor excuse for a human being.

Now if I was this Hill lady and I did, in fact, not know that he was looking at child *advertiser censored*, then come in and find one of my computers missing and then an employee says I gotta call someone regarding all this, I'd be royally pissed. That is if Hill's side of the story is true. As a library patron I'd be pissed if some dumbass mishelved all the books like the library asserts Ms. Biesterfeld did.
 
Amraann - I was not trying to imply that smoking marijuana was harmful per se. I was using the analogy that, as everyone has heard a million time, "smoking pot leads to using hard drugs." I think everyone also knows that this is not necessarily true and can think of examples where it does not apply. However, it does appear to be true in SOME cases. Similarily - I think (my opinion) viewing child *advertiser censored* can lead to a desire to act it out. NOT with everyone, but in some cases. Better to act on the side of caution and report such activity, then risk further harm to a child. Because this sort of thing can ruin a person's life, it can be a difficult call to make. However, he can move and start a new life somewhere else. A child harmed is a child harmed forever, no matter where they move to. So my whole point was "report it" and let the courts determine the guilt of the perp. Don't take a chance.

Salem
 
Here's a question that I can't find the answer to:

Who are considered "mandatory reporters" of child abuse in the state of California? I'm pretty sure across the board doctors and teachers are. Would librarian fall under the umbrella of a teacher?
 
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/news01/803140331

The March 6 letter from Lewis said the county's probationary employees can be terminated at any time if they don't perform at a level "necessary for fully satisfactory performance in the employee's position." However, Lindsay City Councilwoman Suzi Picaso said that six weeks before Biesterfeld's firing, an assistant of Lewis told her Biesterfeld was doing a great job.
 
As per their rating formula: a 5 "is reasonable and consistent with normal expectations of proficiency"

What I find interesting is that you jumped to a ton of conclusions on this case without even a mediocre investigation of the facts.

That rating was in January. Appears a lot of stuff went down in the following couple of months. 5 out of 10 isn't exactly the most ideal employee. Funny you accuse me of jumping to conclusions. I'm just putting out what ifs. Just because I don't immediately jump on the Brenda Bandwagon? Where have I once impugned her character? I never said anything as fact that she was lying, only brought up the possibility. That's in contrast to all the hatred directed at Judi Hill, by people who don't even know her or Ms Biesterfeld for that matter.
 
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/news01/803140331

The March 6 letter from Lewis said the county's probationary employees can be terminated at any time if they don't perform at a level "necessary for fully satisfactory performance in the employee's position." However, Lindsay City Councilwoman Suzi Picaso said that six weeks before Biesterfeld's firing, an assistant of Lewis told her Biesterfeld was doing a great job.

Oh, in that case: case closed! An assistant said she was doing a great job. You got me there.

Who the hell is the assistant and was she friendly with Biesterfeld? Do YOU know this assistant personally?
 
That rating was in January. Appears a lot of stuff went down in the following couple of months. 5 out of 10 isn't exactly the most ideal employee. Funny you accuse me of jumping to conclusions. I'm just putting out what ifs. Just because I don't immediately jump on the Brenda Bandwagon? Where have I once impugned her character? I never said anything as fact that she was lying, only brought up the possibility. That's in contrast to all the hatred directed at Judi Hill, by people who don't even know her or Ms Biesterfeld for that matter.

No, I went to the trouble yesterday to research the hell out of the story ... providing links of her before and after evaluations as well as tons of different media sources and articles. I also provided information on the secret "drop file" as well as provided links to the specific description of what she said she saw. You jumped right in saying that the only source was a right wing agenda based media and that there's lots of different reasons to have naked boys on your computer.

I don't hate Judi, or like Brenda, I researched the story. You jumped in without reading the thread or researching the story.
 
Oh, in that case: case closed! An assistant said she was doing a great job. You got me there.

Who the hell is the assistant and was she friendly with Biesterfeld? Do YOU know this assistant personally?

That's just one link of at least a dozen that I've posted on this story.
 
No, I went to the trouble yesterday to research the hell out of the story ... providing links of her before and after evaluations as well as tons of different media sources and articles. I also provided information on the secret "drop file" as well as provided links to the specific description of what she said she saw. You jumped right in saying that the only source was a right wing agenda based media and that there's lots of different reasons to have naked boys on your computer.

I don't hate Judi, or like Brenda, I researched the story. You jumped in without reading the thread or researching the story.

The initial link to the story was World Net Daily. That's how I got involved in the story, yes. But I also read all the other sources as well. The Drop File still doesn't prove anything.
 
The initial link to the story was World Net Daily. That's how I got involved in the story, yes. But I also read all the other sources as well. The Drop File still doesn't prove anything.

So, you read one post that linked WND and assumed that was the ONLY paper reporting the story and didn't bother to research it yourself.

Yes, I'm well aware of your logic, photos of naked boys may not be *advertiser censored* either.

Anyway . . . I worked in HR for a long time and know how this works:

The Drop File is stuffed primarily with items from after her termination, including copies of the news reports. It also includes a scathing write up on what a crappy employee she is written, not the day before she was fired, not the week before she was fired, but after she was handed her pink slip. Up until she pissed off Judi, by reporting this matter to the police and losing the computer to a criminal investigation, she was a solid employee. They worked double time trying to prove that her termination had nothing to do with her reporting the child *advertiser censored*. And, for good reason ... it's going to cost county tax payers a bundle.
 

a) Did Brenda tell Judi that Crisler was looking at CHILD or REGULAR *advertiser censored*?

This is my sticking point, I'm not 100% convinced that Brenda conveyed to Judi that it was in fact child *advertiser censored*. If she was at all hesitant in her language or reporting, I can see how Judi wanted it handled by the library. Viewing *advertiser censored* is not illegal.
 
Yeah, I know it's not illegal. But in the LIBRARY? That's just wrong. Even if it's adults looking at adults, go home. If you can't afford a computer at home you should be working anyway, not looking for ways to watch *advertiser censored*.

Yeah ... pretty slimy. And, although that would excuse Judi's statement to NOT report it to the police, it doesn't excuse her termination of Brenda. What's conspicuously absent from the "Drop File" is any documentation that would indicate Brenda was going to be let go before her probationary period was up.
 
I wholeheartedly agree. Anyone who turns a blind eye to that garbage is a poor excuse for a human being.

Now if I was this Hill lady and I did, in fact, not know that he was looking at child *advertiser censored*, then come in and find one of my computers missing and then an employee says I gotta call someone regarding all this, I'd be royally pissed. That is if Hill's side of the story is true. As a library patron I'd be pissed if some dumbass mishelved all the books like the library asserts Ms. Biesterfeld did.

I guess I am missing why she would be pissed???
I would hope that my employees ..if I was not there would not turn a blind eye either... I would want them to handle the situation in my absence.
Although I do appreciate your debating the topic:blowkiss:

"Amraann - I was not trying to imply that smoking marijuana was harmful per se. I was using the analogy that, as everyone has heard a million time, "smoking pot leads to using hard drugs." I think everyone also knows that this is not necessarily true and can think of examples where it does not apply. However, it does appear to be true in SOME cases. Similarily - I think (my opinion) viewing child *advertiser censored* can lead to a desire to act it out. NOT with everyone, but in some cases. Better to act on the side of caution and report such activity, then risk further harm to a child. Because this sort of thing can ruin a person's life, it can be a difficult call to make. However, he can move and start a new life somewhere else. A child harmed is a child harmed forever, no matter where they move to. So my whole point was "report it" and let the courts determine the guilt of the perp. Don't take a chance.

Salem"

I get what your saying I just meant that even viewing child *advertiser censored* is harmful to those children abused into posing for it.
Simply viewing child *advertiser censored* is one of the few sexual things that is harmful to others..
I mean most things are between consenting adults.. but being a pedophile is harmful without ever having sexual contact.
 
hmmmmm you're right under a normal probationary situation, that an employee is "at will" and can be terminated at any time for any reason, or no reason at all.

The problem, for them, it now looks like a lot of last minute posturing trying to prove that they had cause to fire her. Legally they didn't need cause to fire her, but now they have two big problems with her termination:

1. Public opinion
2. Whistle blower

They'd be wise to offer her a financial settlement and let it go ... fighting this out in court is going to do nothing but make them look worse and cost them way more money in the long run.
 
This is an interesting article and gives lots of employment information. You don't schedule an employee for additional training that you're planning on terminating.

http://www.thesungazette.com/articles/2008/04/09/news/news01.txt
.....
One of the documents is a three-month performance evaluation of Biesterfeld dated January 15, 2008. In the evaluation, Biesterfeld's supervisor, Judith Hill, wrote that Biesterfeld “steadily increasing [her] skills” and “greet[ed] all customers in a friendly manner.” It goes on to say that, “customers of Lindsay branch enjoy your friendliness” and even went so far as to direct Biesterfeld to “go over the move and floor plan” of the new Lindsay Library and mentioned additional training in March.

On Feb. 21, Biesterfeld was visited by the entire management of the Tulare County library system, all of whom reiterated that Biesterfeld would very soon assume responsibilities for this brand new facility. A few days after that visit, Biesterfeld was asked what color bookends she wished for the new facility. Biesterfeld was previously employed by the Tulare County Library as a library assistant from 1984 to 1987, when she moved out of the area.
....


The website also included a document signed by Biesterfeld stating that she read and accepted the terms of probationary period whereas she could be “rejected from probation Š and may not appeal the rejection .. and will not be told reasons for such rejection.” The county's attorney, Michael Woods, contends that this alone is enough to fire her on grounds of policy.
 
As a library patron I'd be pissed if some dumbass mishelved all the books like the library asserts Ms. Biesterfeld did.

I previously mentioned in this thread that i think she may well have been let go for legitimate reasons. She had a 5 out of 10 on her review. That isn't a star employee by any means. There was also a file created to track the instances where she had to be corrected, including many of the things in her 3 month evaluation. I mentioned before that we had an employee that we had to keep a file on so we could justify letting her go at the end of her 6 months, just before the probation period ended. We gave her till then to get her act together. To comment on the above quote, one of the most irritating things she would do is just file (medical records0 to get things off of the filing shelves. She would sometimes be so careless that she would file all of the records wrong. It was infuriating and embarassing when patients would come in to be seen and we couldn't find their records. :(

So going back to the 3 points that brought up. I think she was fired legally and would likely have been fired even if this incident didn't occur. Second, i think that it is a shame that the librarian looks at the *advertiser censored* issue so lightly. Third, I think this lady did the right thing calling the cops.

Following up on those thoughts, I do not know that i wholely believe either side of the story. i have seen the letter justifying the termination saying that when asked who the cop was she said Ms. Biesterfield gave a name without mentioning that he was a cop. I think there is a lot of finger pointing and bitterness. I also don't agree with ms. Biesterfield on several things perhaps including the comment where she says she told the librarian that it was child *advertiser censored*. i think the difference there came out afterwards when it was pointed out that child *advertiser censored* is illegal and other *advertiser censored* isn't. This really is a she said/ she said fight. i think the relevant part is that the perv was arrested. i think that the library system needs to set standard policies and procedures,
 
Most whislte blower statutes I'm aware of protect the employee who reports illegal activity by the employer - doesn't really fit here, especially with the probationary period.

I think the real fallout - and this is what I hope for - will be the exposure of the library association's policy that sanctions the protection of child *advertiser censored* by wrapping it up in the 1st amendment, followed by a change in that policy and the ousting of those who promulgated it. Not all expression is covered by the 1st amendment, nor should it be.

But that's the heart of the problem. IF her employer had a policy to NOT report child *advertiser censored*, that is an illegal activity and she'd be protected as a whistleblower. Proving that is gonna be a tough nut though.

Interesting case, there's just lots of bits to ponder.
 
I mentioned before that we had an employee that we had to keep a file on so we could justify letting her go at the end of her 6 months, just before the probation period ended. We gave her till then to get her act together.

R&G, I've seen and worked on a number of those types of files myself. One thing that really bothered me is that this file was created AFTER her termination. If they were documenting to terminate her employment, it would have been done all along ... not created after she was let go. Also, why would they have scheduled additional training for her beyond her probationary date if they didn't intend to keep her? Something just isn't added up on this termination and I think it was in retaliation for reporting the situation to the police.
 
LOLOL Ok Agreed but typically they are appointed a pubic defender who has little choice put to take the case. (meaning they may defend them legally but certainly not emotionally or morally)

I was referring to anyone else defending a clearly caught child *advertiser censored* viewer.

:blowkiss:
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
2,047
Total visitors
2,239

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,128
Members
228,014
Latest member
Back2theGardenAgain
Back
Top