Coke dealer - suspended with pay

Kanawha schools worker suspended after drug arrest

A Kanawha County Schools employee charged with intent to distribute cocaine has been suspended with pay, according to human resources director Bill Courtney.

A Kanawha County Schools employee charged with intent to distribute cocaine has been suspended with pay, according to human resources director Bill Courtney.

On Wednesday, State Police troopers arrested Jeffrey Allen Carver, 46, of Dry Branch, after they discovered two separately packaged "eight balls" of cocaine and $1,307 in cash. Police say the cocaine is worth $500.

School records indicate Carver is a carpenter who earns more than $36,500 a year. Courtney said he is employed at the county's Crede office.

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200803270092

GEEEEZE, $36,500 a year ....... and that doesn't include the overtime.

Betcha he rallied long and hard against "drug testing" of School employees.

.

Well what would you recommend? Had he been suspended WITHOUT pay, and the charges fallen through as one big mistake, or even a frameup, how would he become "whole" again.

The ghost of Fred Zain still stalks, you know.

If he's convicted, you wouldn't have a problem with him being forced to pay all the money he's received back from this point then, would you Zig?

Aaron wrote:If he's convicted, you wouldn't have a problem with him being forced to pay all the money he's received back from this point then, would you Zig?

As long as it was done pursuant to West Virginia law, I wouldn't have a problem with having him pay back money he legally owed, no.

But being charged with a crime is not grounds for dismissal. The suspension with pay is for the benefit and convenience of the employer. So until the employer is absolutely certain that a crime punishable by dismissal has been committed, the suspension should be at the financial risk to the employer, not the employee.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:If he's convicted, you wouldn't have a problem with him being forced to pay all the money he's received back from this point then, would you Zig?

As long as it was done pursuant to West Virginia law, I wouldn't have a problem with having him pay back money he legally owed, no.

But being charged with a crime is not grounds for dismissal. The suspension with pay is for the benefit and convenience of the employer. So until the employer is absolutely certain that a crime punishable by dismissal has been committed, the suspension should be at the financial risk to the employer, not the employee.

I'm not surprised of your classic "union, protect the individual at ALL cost no matter how pathetic or how egregious of an offense they commit" response. In fact, I as much expected it from you.

I believe in ‘innocent until proven guilty’ but the way I see it, if the law doesn't allow for an employer to go after any pay received during a suspension that warrants dismissal, then the law should be changed. That not only included a conviction charge but any type of plea agreement to the original or any lesser charge for the arresting offense.

This guy is entitled to the presumption of innocence. That is one of the pillars of our legal system.

The school board might also be keeping in mind that principal who was arrested on a drug charge who managed to convince the court it wasn't his and was all some big mistake. If they had suspended him without pay, they would very likely be fighting that out in court costing the district legal fees.

IMO they did the correct thing.

Aaron wrote:I believe in ‘innocent until proven guilty’...

Stephanie wrote:This guy is entitled to the presumption of innocence. That is one of the pillars of our legal system.

We agree.

I just think that if he is found guilty the employer should be allowed to go after any money received during the suspension. I think that's reasonable.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:As long as it was done pursuant to West Virginia law, I wouldn't have a problem with having him pay back money he legally owed, no.

But being charged with a crime is not grounds for dismissal. The suspension with pay is for the benefit and convenience of the employer. So until the employer is absolutely certain that a crime punishable by dismissal has been committed, the suspension should be at the financial risk to the employer, not the employee.

I'm not surprised of your classic "union, protect the individual at ALL cost no matter how pathetic or how egregious of an offense they commit" response. In fact, I as much expected it from you.

That was/is not my response, and you damn well know it.

But I do believe in protecting the law at all costs. And demanding money from someone- beyond what the law says they owe- is to reduce the law to a mudmat.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:As long as it was done pursuant to West Virginia law, I wouldn't have a problem with having him pay back money he legally owed, no.

But being charged with a crime is not grounds for dismissal. The suspension with pay is for the benefit and convenience of the employer. So until the employer is absolutely certain that a crime punishable by dismissal has been committed, the suspension should be at the financial risk to the employer, not the employee.

I'm not surprised of your classic "union, protect the individual at ALL cost no matter how pathetic or how egregious of an offense they commit" response. In fact, I as much expected it from you.

That was/is not my response, and you damn well know it.

But I do believe in protecting the law at all costs. And demanding money from someone- beyond what the law says they owe- is to reduce the law to a mudmat.

How is what you said different from a response from a union representative?

Protecting the law at all cost requires putting all domestic violence offenders in jail regardless of circumstances. Do you support that?

Aaron wrote:I just think that if he is found guilty the employer should be allowed to go after any money received during the suspension. I think that's reasonable.

I would have agreed with you- but only before we learned about Fred Zane's magic formula for manufacturing evidence to match the crime and the defendent.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:As long as it was done pursuant to West Virginia law, I wouldn't have a problem with having him pay back money he legally owed, no.

But being charged with a crime is not grounds for dismissal. The suspension with pay is for the benefit and convenience of the employer. So until the employer is absolutely certain that a crime punishable by dismissal has been committed, the suspension should be at the financial risk to the employer, not the employee.

I'm not surprised of your classic "union, protect the individual at ALL cost no matter how pathetic or how egregious of an offense they commit" response. In fact, I as much expected it from you.

That was/is not my response, and you damn well know it.

But I do believe in protecting the law at all costs. And demanding money from someone- beyond what the law says they owe- is to reduce the law to a mudmat.

How is what you said different from a response from a union representative?

It is different because it is not what I said.

Protecting the law at all cost requires putting all domestic violence offenders in jail regardless of circumstances. Do you support that?

No, the law does not require that any more than it requires putting "all" beer joint brawl participants in jail "regardless of the circumstances". "The circumstances" is what determines whether the subject(s) should be put in jail. For example, self-defense is a good and legal defense against a charge of "battery", or of "domestic violence", or even of a homicide related charge. In the law "the circumstances" is everything.

Zig-

Sorry but I don't see the difference in your response and that of a typical union stewart. You may think that it's different and while you're entitled to that opinion, I just don't see it.

As for the other, if the cops show up at a beer joint brawl, you'll likely get ticketed. If you can produce a witness that says JimboBillyBobBubba started it because you winked at his sistercousingirlfriend, you might even get off with a warning to go home and sleep it off.

If the cops show up becasuse you and the Mrs. is screaming and hollering and she has a shiner, she can swear till the cows come home that she got it by walking into a door but your ass is still going to jail.

Convictions another story but that's up to a jury of your peers.