All of these requirements sound like typical "Secret" classification
requirements.  There are companies that do these sorts of background
checks on employees or potential employees.  Generally, the position
requires attainment of, or maintanence of Secret clearance.  If you
cannot be cleared, you don't get the job even if you are otherwise
qualified.  If you cannot maintain clearance, you cannot have access to
the information and must be removed from a position where you would have
access to "sensitive" information.

There is nothing illegal here.  Any law suits would be deemed frivolous
and thrown out unless there was a legitimate reason why a person should
be able to be classified but were not.

I live in an area where every 3rd person has at least secret
classification, and often get queried myself on a person's background
and my dealings with them.  Seems to be the times...

Greg

Val Seaquist wrote:

>We recently received a draft task order contract from the Tennessee
>Valley Authority which contains a security requirements clause that
>appears to be more stringent than anything I've had to deal with before.
>We have many classified contracts but this has requirements beyond what
>they have. We aren't equipped for this level of employee scrutiny and
>some of the items look like potential law suits if we acted on them.
>(I've run this by HR, University Counsel and Research Security offices
>and they agree.) I'll list some of the requirements below and am asking
>if any of you in the TVA-coverage area have accepted such a clause and
>how you handle it.
>
>"University agrees to . . .
>1. favorable background investigation has been completed [some of the
>items are in our normal pre-employment screening, but we don't employ
>'local law enforcement checks for all locations where the individual has
>lived or worked in the past 5 years'],
>2. must submit, for TVA approval, copy of University's clearance program
>or company used for clearance activities,
>3. additionally, employee must submit to check in TVA's University
>Security System database,
>4. University must disqualify employee for:
>        a. felony conviction in past 5 years;
>        b. pattern of criminal behavior (evidenced by 3 or more
>misdemeanor convictions in past 5 years);
>        c. pattern or alcohol or substance abuse with no evidence of
>rehabilitation;
>        d. association with terrorist organization;
>        e. any behavior/activity which tends to show that the individual
>is not reliable, trustworthy,
>                and of good character . . ." and it goes on
>
>I can't imagine making a judgment decision on 4.b. or 4.e. above and not
>having some serious legal repercussions. My inclination at the moment is
>to say "no thanks." Thank you for your input.
>
>Val Seaquist
>Office of Sponsored Programs
>The University of Alabama in Huntsville
>
>
>======================================================================
> Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
> subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
> via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
>======================================================================
>
>
>

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================