A formal political party entity has, at its core, the mission to perpetuate an ideology. It is in the profession of perpetuating that ideology. If the ODP sets up guidelines for what it believes would be an unacceptable risk to its ability to perpetuate that ideology, then, when they conduct and assess whether an applicant is or is not a risk to being able to perpetuate the ideology, they should follow those guidelines, just as with anyone charged with hiring in any field.

Where we do agree: pervasive lowering of standards is potentially very dangerous. And calculated risks can definitely be worthwhile.

But I won’t second guess others in making those determinations - especially if I don’t have access to firsthand knowledge of what went on in the process.

Megan was released because of her expressed thoughts. The problems you cite have to do with finding qualified people who on the surface appear to represent risks in certain professions. One example is that cops in credit trouble are more vulnerable to bribery.

I don’t think it’s that complicated. If you’re ODP you do the legwork and in a less pressured situation decide whether Megan is in fundamental agreement with party positions now, regardless of what she wrote 7 years ago (which she IMO has nothing to be ashamed about anyway). They should have stood up for her after the fact too. I think her firing sends a message to ODP employees and pols that you are one “mistake,” past or present, in action or thought, from being thrown under the bus.

The other jobs have largely objective standards. I don’t object to taking a calculated risk on applicants from time to time, but pervasive lowering of standards is potentially very dangerous.

Listen to these two reports from the last 12 months, in which police dept. spokesmen specifically say, we’re lowering our standards because if we don’t, we can’t get anyone. They say in one report that they must go through 100 applicants to get 1 who will make it to the force.

Are we okay with this? Do credit problems, bankruptcy or drug use, poor academics, visible tattoos or criminal history, in the background of a police officer, bother you? How much? Think about how we attack politicians for elements in their background.

Here are the links:

From June 07 (standards discussion at 2:51)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10682250

This report from Oct 06 (based on young people not wanting to become police)mentions how half of all people who attended high school from 1980 forward have drugs, poor academics or criminal, or they have “very visible” tattoos and bad credit.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6380058

This issue of what to do with people’s backgrounds, whatever is in them isn’t new. But how we’re judging people seems to be shifting, and shifting depending on each case.

Aren’t we supposed to making guidelines and applying them across the board?

I don’t know anymore. It’s a very complicated issue.

Obviously, as you can imagine, it’s not that I don’t have an opinion, it’s that my opinion as to that specific question is completely irrelevant, except to the extent that anyone would want to know what and/or how I think when I try to understand such situations. And I can promise you, getting to that answer would be as long-winded as the longest, windiest thing I’ve ever written.

Also, shouldn’t the ODP chairman, Chris Redfern, be expected to honor his past promises to progressive activists that happen to be well over a year and a half old ?????

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/redfern.php

How can anyone trust Todd Hoffman or Chris Redfern’s actions and/or words when they both have demonstrated shady and manipulative pasts?

I don’t trust either of them and of course I can hardly stand to mention big boi bryan clark by name. Redfern should have his head examined for hiring Hoffman. However, even more, both Redfern and Hoffman should be fired just for associating with Bryan Clark, let alone hiring him.

It is very apparent that Redfern is the scum of the earth based on the scum he is hiring to produce lies and other manipulative propaganda. The ODP communication team is completely corrupted and misleading in every way that means anything. I would exempt Randy Borntrager simply because I don’t know him. However, if Randy is willing to work with these other ODP dirtbags, then Randy is indirectly guilty by association.

It’s my opinion that employers need to have standard procedures in hiring practices. Those procedures would govern what sources they use to learn about applicants and how they process the information they gather.

I am not an employment lawyer and I’m not a Party girl so I can’t judge the ODP’s decision based on either the law or the tenets they say must be adhered to.

I am not in a position to say whether or not she “deserved the boot.”