Archive for the ‘Background Check’ Category

Doing a Background Check, Your Homework, and Getting the Blue Prints on General Contractors

Sunday, December 11th, 2011
Doing your homework on contractors

How to prep for your general contractor

In my circle of friends …that I’ve run in the last ten to fifteen years, the standard order of things was: high school, college, girlfriend, house, wife, dogs (starter kids).  Aside of high school and college, the rest could get switched around here or there; but, that was the path we all seemed to have taken.

Logically, as our dogs had been a marked success, the next step would be… children (probably x2), but with another round of graduate school and the twilight of our young adult life dwindling down, we had decided that our little cottage craftsman home needed an update of the renovation style– the design kind rather than an addition to the family kind (either way it was going to be expensive).

Since my spouse was a seasoned HGTV watcher—home of the DIYN (Do it yourself Network), she had no problem deciding what was going to be done, in exactly what color, wood grain, and tile pattern.  She knew that she wanted the lighter maple cabinets in the kitchen to match the mosaic tile, to match the refinished floors, so on and so on.

Her obsession with home design didn’t end with HGTV DIY shows… she watched the programs about the failed contracts and city inspectors. The kind of programs that show how every day people are entrapped by “professional contracts” who cut corners or don’t finish jobs on time (or not at all).

Moreover, each episode exposes inspectors that casually glance over incorrect wiring/plumbing/etc and leave home owners with houses that will cost thousands to fix a few years down the road.

Think of the Holmes on Homes or Holmes Inspection shows (I know, they’re Canadian, but if it can happen in Canada, it can happen here).

At the time, our budget topped off at 30k, a third of the house’s worth at 120k—we knew it was going to be a commitment. I wanted to find someone who was (among other things)… reputable, cost effective, honest, and transparent.  She was more focused on the bottom line.  Together, we made a good team.

But we were like everyone else without much construction experience.  There wasn’t a test all General Contractors (GCs) take that can help the customer choose a good one and avoid the lemons.  Everyone needs work, will bid competitive prices, and knows their company is a small fish in a big pond.  But, to combat this, there are routes to take to check credibility.

There isn’t just one option that will guarantee a good experience with a GC, but combining two or more of the following options will aide in the chances you will have the correct expectations and know what you are getting into

  • An accurate background check will provide conclusive information about the owner.  Choosing a researching company to provide the most accurate information at the best price will save the customer much of the leg room.
  • The Better Business Bureau (BBB) is a good service to use to determine the legitimacy of the GC.  Among many things, the BBB provides consumers to research complaints and reviews about a business.  The best part… it’s free.
  • There are many free websites that offer similar services about local businesses.  Often times, simply Googling a business or contractor will provide a myriad of results.
  • Using websites like Angieslist.com claim that their membership dues (roughly 17 dollars for a year) cover the client from anonymous reviewers, use “certified” data collectors, and have a team that will intercede in the event something goes wrong with a home repair or health experience.  What that means may actually vary, but there is something to be said about reading reviews from non-anonymous reviewers.

When it comes to reviews, it’s tough to know what is good information and what is fluff that a company pays someone to write about them.  Angieslist may have qualified researchers and a team that legitimately helps in the event of a crisis; but, the peace of mind provided by unbiased reviewers (of course someone will likely be biased if he/she is writing a review, but at least he/she will be acting on their own genuine  experience) is what sells me on their site.

  • Check out the homes they have worked on in the past.  Ask for a list of the last ten homes the general contractor has worked on and check them out.  Ask the neighbors if the GC or his Sub-Contractors (Subs) were courteous and didn’t take up all the room on the street.  Don’t look like creepers, but check out the windows, the gutters, or the siding… whatever may be repeated.  Knock on the door of the home owner and ask about his/her experience with the general contractor and the hired subs.

Take those addresses and see how their market value has increased in the event they were sold.  That should give the researcher an idea about how much others have liked the GC’s work and if it increased the value of the home versus the average from the neighborhood, all good information to know for later in the homes life.

  • Take into account the amount of time the GC invested in the estimate. Was he/she on time? Was he/she they polite and take off shoes? Take into account the resources there were brought over to make decisions easier e.g. samples, color swabs, or catalogues.  It’s those little things that can make the difference when the bottle line is similar across the board.

Again, any one of these ideas won’t promise success.  When I had my home renovated, between the two of us, we probably checked off each item on this list.  But there weren’t surprises that took us off guard because of it and our contracting experience was a success.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Dating Background Check Promoter in Trouble

Wednesday, December 7th, 2011

Lying to a grand jury would not normally be called sleazy, something more like just plain stupid considering the consequences that in all likelihood will follow.  Most people would agree, however, that a married man messing with the dancers in a strip club is just plain sleazy.  Certainly, John Kenneth Arnold’s wife would agree.  After all, he was arrested on related charges on a Thursday morning.

Arnold is a co-founder of Intelius, an online provider of background checks.  Susan Kohler, chief marketing officer at Intelius, claimed that the company had just heard of the charges that morning and had no further comment other than that Arnold remained an employee at the company.  Co-founder Naveen Jain, commented from Los Angeles that he was shocked by the news, “It is extremely saddening to me because he is a really good guy.”  He says he also knew nothing of the charges prior to Thursday.

The charges stem from testimony Arnold gave before a grand jury in an investigation of Frank Colacurcio Sr, the owner of the strip club “Rick’s” where the incident took place.  Arnold is alleged to have lied when he denied engaging in certain lascivious acts with dancers at the club.  Considering that the investigation on Colacurcio included hidden cameras, ouch.

Ironically, last September Arnold was promoting an iPhone application from Intelius called “Date Check”.  This app includes a feature called “Sleaze Detector” that warns of any criminal history on a potential date.  In Arnold’s words, “Letting a stranger into your life is a huge risk, and in the age of Internet anonymity, a simple online search isn’t enough to tell you everything you need to know.”

Maybe now his wife is wishing that service had been around when she started dating him.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Arizona Gun Laws and Lack of Criminal Background Checks Might Just be Crazy

Saturday, April 30th, 2011

The right to defend oneself has generally been recognized since the beginning of recorded history.  In the United States, the right to self defense is considered to be constitutionally guaranteed even though not explicitly stated, as is the right to bear arms.  Because of the somewhat indefinite wording used in the Constitution, the debate on this issue, and the debate about what exactly the writers of the Constitution intended, has been raging ever since.

Last year a man openly carrying an AR-15 rifle at a protest outside a speech by President Obama brought Arizona’s loose gun laws to national attention. The past year or so, there has been a push by gun rights advocates to loosen up those laws a little more by reducing restrictions on where they can carry a firearm. Among their goals is to make Arizona the third state where it is legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. This would eliminate the requirement for criminal background checks and training classes for people wishing to carry a hidden weapon.

“That’s sheer insanity,” said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center. “If you remove the background check requirement, you’re literally writing a death sentence for law enforcement officers, family members, just people in the street.” A recent example we all know about was the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords by a person I consider to be a psychotic lunatic, one Jared Laughner. He clearly shouldn’t have been allowed to possess a gun, but whether he would have acquired one anyway, legal or not, is up for debate.

Regardless of legality or not, The Christian Science Monitor wrote, “Despite evidence that Arizona shooting suspect Jared Loughner is mentally unstable, he was never declared mentally unfit by a court, so his name did not appear in the federal background-check database used by gun sellers.”

The other side of the argument is that a criminal or anyone with nefarious motives will carry a gun anyway, and that restrictive gun laws simply tie the hands of law abiding citizens wishing to defend themselves.  In the words of Senator Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican sponsoring the bill, “All we’re doing is handcuffing good people, restricting their constitutional, God-given right to carry and perhaps their ability to defend their families.”

Why this sort of argument justifies doing away with a criminal background check as a requirement to obtain a gun permit is anyone’s guess. Certain people simply should not have access to a gun, or anything like a gun, although as stated earlier, laws are unlikely to remedy that situation.

Do You Know Who Your Landlord Is?

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

Would you give the keys to your house to a convicted rapist?  Maybe you’re waffling, having thoughts about being a bigger person, taking the high road and giving them a second chance since his conviction was over 20 years ago.  Let me add some more background to help you make up your mind.  In September of 1987, William Barnason was in prison for sexually abusing a 5 year old girl.  He   was sentenced to 10 to 20 years after pleading guilty to rape, sodomy and sexual-abuse charges related to an attack on three Suffolk County girls between ages 5 and 7.  It’s fairly certain that at this point you have a pretty clear idea of your response to the question posed at the opening of this article.

Barnason is a level three high risk offender.  Unfortunately, now I have to tell you that someone already gave this man the keys to your house, and 49 of your neighbors. If you’re stunned, afraid, going out to buy a gun, pissed off, or all of the above, you will understand how the residents of an apartment building in the Upper West Side feel. Shortly after his release in 2001, he obtained a job as super of three apartment buildings owned by a Stanley Katz. That means that he has keys to all 50 apartments where he does maintenance and collects rent.

This has come to light because some of the women renting apartments there had enough and filed lawsuits related to sexual harassment. There were repeated claims of Barnason shaking women down for sex, especially when they fell behind on the rent.

The residents were shocked and can’t believe he was allowed to be super of the building, especially considering there are elementary schools close by. Katz’s attorney claimed in a statement that Katz had only recently learned of Barnason’s criminal history, and there were no plans for his dismissal.

Considering that a background check is required for most jobs, and even before one can move into most apartments, it is mind-boggling that Katz did not know of Barnason’s past. The absolute disregard for his tenant’s safety and betrayal of their trust is stunning. You probably had to agree to a background check when moving into a new apartment. However, doing your own anonymous search to find out who your manager and maintenance people are might not be a bad idea.

Immigration, Court Records, and Fearful Politicians

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011

Everyone knows that a politician in an election year is a nervous politician.  After all, it’s not everyone that has a job review with such a final outcome.  A clever twist in the plot is that their particular mandate can change any time.

The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts last year saw a collective wince from politicians around the country, and his fellow republicans were no exception.  They are all too well aware of what running on a platform of “not the other guy” can cost. For example, it can cost a presidential election.

The result is of course paralysis. By such an unexpected show of voter ire, the heat is on and politicians are left wondering what it means for them and their policies.  Unpopular measures no longer stand a chance. This leads to the question of why these unpopular measures are being considered in the first place.  Tuition assistance for illegal immigrants? What the hell! Where else in the world, where it seems to be all the rage to bash America, would an illegal immigrant even be tolerated?

It’s time for Americans to realize political correctness is going to choke the life out this great nation. Nitpicking belongs in a bar room, not a legislative chamber.  This type of behavior is typically from politicians with the single aim of making sure they stay in office. Rather than seeking to do what is best for the country as a whole, they try to please every single group of their constituents no matter the cost.

Another issue that in Massachusetts has consensus as being important is an overhaul of the Criminal Offender Record Information system. It is generally agreed that the system is a mess, as has been noted on bestbackgroundcheck.org.  Once again, skittish legislators may shelve it based on this or that political baloney.

Naturally, it is vitally important that politicians listen to their constituents and pay attention to what is important to them. After all, that is how democracy works.  However, they need to listen carefully and filter the special interest bullshit from what is really being asked for. In this particular election in Massachusetts, it is quite obvious that the issue of the day is the economy. This is not to say that everything else is not important and should be discarded. Rather, it’s simply saying to politicians; get your priorities in order! Once you have taken care of the issues that are most urgent, you can get on to the others. After all, if there is no Massachusetts, then a debate on overhauling the criminal records system or providing tuition assistance to illegal immigrants becomes entirely moot.