I understand recently elected School Board member Charles Searcy has adamantly refused to comply with the Indian River County School District’s Fingerprinting and Drug Testing Policy. He has stated that since he did not comply in 1996, he will not comply now. He apparently is either ignorant of the law or his judgment is seriously in question.
The policy is based on the Jessica Lunsford Act of 2005, which requires “all” prospective employees of the district to complete these checks. There are no provisions for exceptions in the policy for elected officials, as they are employees once they are seated. The School Board’s attorney’s opinion stating that Searcy will need an escort every time he is around children does not work. The expense, the intrusion, the disruption and the example he would be setting for the children of Indian River County makes it clear that the county has a responsibility to refuse to hire Searcy — because that is what they would be doing in violation of their own ethical guidelines.
Our children’s safety and welfare is at stake here and that trumps Searcy’s need to cover any legal, criminal or substance abuse issues he may be hiding or hold himself above the law, which is just as egregious. If he can refuse to comply in a position of leadership, what makes you think other demands for exceptions are not to be expected?
This should be a very big wake-up call for this county. If voters and reporters had done their homework and raised the question before we got to this point, quite possibly this situation could have been avoided.
This is not new behavior. The leadership of the county should do its job. Refuse to seat him.
Daniel Penni
Indian River Guardian 
I agree with the letter writer there seems to be an abundance of people and organizations not doing their job as effectively as necessary. The Florida legislature tried to set up a structure to protect taxpayers from the negative agenda of many who want to use elective office for their own political gain. Unfortunately, like so much in life in the 21st centurythere is a demand that people insist that those who allegedly work on their behalf do an effective job.
Maybe the county can deny him pay and health coverage if he continues to refuse to live by the letter of the law.
Having to pay for escorts every time he enters a school is a waste of taxpayer money and whatever expenses are incurred should result in a bill that he personally must pay.
He has three choices (1) comply with the law (2) pay for his escorts (3) resign and avoid the embarrassment.
Unfortunately, Mr. Searcy has a 4th choice – never to set foot into schools with children present. Having a Board of Education member who doesn’t visit those facilities seems like a waste of taxpayers’ money and an affront to the IRC Education Program.