The belief that criminal record checks and testing for drugs is useful =
is based on several assumptions that I think should be carefully =
examined.

1       If a background check turns up a criminal conviction, that person has =
a criminal record.  There are too many accounts of innocent people with =
names similar to those of criminals, or "borrowed" by criminals, who =
spend years and much money to prove their innocence.

2       If a background check turns up no criminal conviction, then that =
person has no criminal record.  There are many sources both printed and =
on the Internet that provide instruction on how to assume  a new =
identity.
        Also, this could just indicate they haven't been caught yet!

3       Drug tests are infallible. NOT...even the most reliable tests can have =
up to a ten percent false positive rate.  Also, there are certain =
substances that can be used to mask the presence of drugs in the urine.
        Additionally, is there a cause and effect between a positive drug test =
and the dinosaur falling down.  (What museum lays such a task on a =
single employee?)

4       If the policies requiring these procedures are not followed 100%-board =
of trustees, director, professional staff, support staff, etc-then the =
institution is looking a potential law suit for discrimination.

        In the only concrete example presented to this strand, someone who =
failed the drug test and had a criminal record, these checks were not =
needed, checking school records and references provided sufficient =
information that this person was not trustworthy.
        Trust is a two way street.  Find people who are trustworthy and reward =
them with institutional trust.  At the same time keep temptation away =
with procedures and safe guards.  As the old gipper said-trust, but =
verify.