Would you hire someone under investigation by the FBI

1) to be treasurer of your company
2) to be president of the college with access to alumni records for fund raising
3) to take care of your cats while you went to Europe for 2 weeks...
4) to be the insurance carrier for your employees
5) to be your pastor
6) to run your non-profit day care center
7) to manage your condo association with multiple sub-contractors
8) to be a private in the Army
9) to be chief of police of your community
10) to take care of your mother who has dementia?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/10/28/comey-letter-n2238090

 http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/10/723927-barack-obamas-reaction-to-fbi-reopening-hillarys-email-case-is-nothing-short-of-stunning/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0

 

Don't let the door hit you on your way out

Ohio State is tightening its belt for the "new" economy.

"When a classified civil service staff member does not pass probation, and is notified of that decision, practices have varied as to when the actual employment ends. With this practice recommendation, the person will leave our employment the day of notification. We are making this a universal practice which will have no reflection on the individual, and allow for completely consistent process. The individual will be able to move forward immediately for the next job search with no expectation to complete any additional employment in the probationary position."

Isn't this thoughtful. . . allows the ex-employee to move forward immediately.

And this is odd. . . there is a pre-employment background check for all new employees, but no background check for current employees. But wait! It gets better. Current employees are supposed to voluntarily "report convictions for a specified set of offenses that may occur at any time during university employment." Then the university will check on it, decide on how his job should be changed, create a background check record, but destroy the information. Wha. . . .? I guess it's too expensive to do a background check on current employees, so they want her to volunteer the information that just might destroy promotion or career.

Why can't OSU cite its own or peer reviewed research?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. It's happened twice now in about 6 weeks. If I see something health related in my OSU human resources site I think I should expect something other than shilling for an anti-aging supplement company. I noticed an article under Wellness about Vitamin D and immunity. It's flu season so I clicked on it and it brought up an interesting page (reformated from the original) about vitamin D research. I made the assumption I was reading research from the University's canyons of labs, offices, gov't grants and libraries, but by the time I started rolling through footnotes that began with #25, I realized something was wrong. So I scrolled to the bottom and got a link to Life Extension Magazine, a pop-health webpage that sells anti-aging supplements! And it wasn't even current--it was almost 2 years old!

The first time I was caught was a scare story about plastic baby bottles--that link led to an advocacy page loaded with the words, "might," "could," "it is thought," and nothing concrete out of thousands of studies.

If an OSU researcher has a break through, ah-ha moment, and it's out there at a popular science or consumer health website, by all means, let us know. But don't be making stuff up, folks, and sending off to buy supplements.