Contact your School Committee representative. They should have changed the policy when the mother initially asked them to, before they were sued. The new policy is a very reasonable one and I am glad it has been implemented, but this is the way it should have been from the beginning.

The new policy does not give ex-felons carte blanche to volunteer in schools. There is a huge difference between violent and non-violent felonies. This woman was convicted of heroin use decades ago, has since turned her life around and gotten certified chemical dependency professional. "Zero tolerance" polices that remove all human judgement and common sense from the equation may be easier to implement but nearly always end up hurting people.

I recently came back from Les Misérables (see it! now!) about a man (Jean Valjean) who serves 20 years hard labor for stealing a loaf of bread, and even after his time is served must always run, in hiding, from the Inspector, never being able to make amends for his crime...it seems like a fitting story here.

Oh really Bill?

We're citing Broadway musicals as justification in potentialy exposing our children to people of questionable character?

If there is one chance in a million that this individual could be harmfull to our children then zero tolerance is justifiable.

I am not saying we should base our policies on Broadway musicals; I'm just saying that the story reminded me of what was happening here.

Zero-tolerance policies are never justifiable. They are easy fixes that government implements so that no one has to use their brain ever. Is a plastic knife a kid brought in to spread peanut butter on his crackers a weapon? No need to use human judgement, kick the kid out of school anyway.

I'm actually skeptical of the ACLU's argument: I do not see how it is discriminatory to not allow ex-felons to volunteer: ex-felons are not a protected class like race, sex, etc. But I am glad the policy was changed to allow some human judgement to shine through in special circumstances.

This woman was convicted of a non-violent crime decades, served her time, overcame her addiction, went to college, and became a drug counseling professional. I do not know her but from what the news is reporting she seems like someone schools should be *encouraging* to volunteer, to speak at programs like DARE, not shoved to the margins of society for life with a scarlet letter forever emblazoned on her chest.

Bill,

I agree Zero tolerance is not always the answer and can lead to some injustice.

I agree that it is an easy fix. But when we are dealing with the way our government works, there are certain instances were counting on the beureaucrats to make proper and effective health and safety decisions for children may warrant eliminating the decision process for the sure-fire effective policy.

I am just of the mindset that for the safekeeping of innocent children, the risk of injustice from a Zero-Tolerance is unfortunate, but allowable. Then if that infexible policy does not work (as in the Doyle case), that should be the time when in your words "human judgement" is applied.

Thanks Suzanne I will check as I bet she was awarded something $$$ as it's all about $$$....

You know nothing about this woman but are quick to judge that it had something to do with money. Maybe she was just a mom who wanted to help out at her kids' school and was unjustly denied that opportunity?

The settlement may include attorneys' fees for the ACLU, but that money does not go to the woman herself.

rgl,

You are right, that there are people with a clean record out there who may be unsafew to be around children. We do not know about them, so that is sometimes a risk.

But the people who have prior convictions are certainly more of a risk. Them, we know for sure had or have a character propblem.

What I am saying is why should we take that risk with our innocent children?

That may not sit well with people who may be reformed, but I can live with someone's feelings being hurt easier than I can live with the one time we get it wrong and have some child hurt.

@ Cranston Resident : Have you ever been given a second chance at anything in your life? Did you have to even go through state mandated hoops to be given that second chance or was the second chance just granted to you? If you have EVER been given a second chance for ANYTHING it shows that you also have "bad" or "questionable" judgement. Maybe you shouldn't be let near children either? Maybe we should revoke a persons license the first time they get a ticket for going 5mph over the limit or roll through a stop sign or get a parking ticket. I mean there is no such thing as a mistake it's just black and white right or wrong. After all, someone that speeds or rolls through a stop sign could end up killing innocent children in a school zone with such poor and reckless judgement!!

Put the rock down and step away from the glass house. You're not a perfect person. You know it, i know it, we All Know It.

Vinnie,
Get real. We are not talking about a traffic violation here. She was convicted of Felony possession of heroin.

I'd rather we kept heroin users away from our children's schools and risk offending or hurting the feelings of a reformed person and giving them a "second chance" at it with innocent children.

Just sayin...

@ Cransron Resident ; That's just it, she is no longer a Heroin user and hasn't been for over a decade. However, she is now an LCDP... Which is a state licensure, that even those of a Master's education needs to qualify. Thanks. Have a great day.

@Mike So, you're saying because they took God out of schools, an ex-drug-abuser gets a chance to volunteer work. Because God would never stand for such forgiveness and redemption for past misdeeds, I guess.~

If she was convicted of a violent crime that's one thing. She was caught with a controlled substance for her own personal use and it was a bad decision on her part no doubt. She wasn't selling she wasn't committing a crime while intoxicated etc etc etc. She learned from her mistake and paid her debt as society saw fit. Keep in mind this all happened before she was even a parent. Throwing Jessica under the same blanket as convicted molesters, murderers, rapists , larcenists etc etc etc is ignorant.