King County deputy questioned about 'bogus' diploma

Another incompetent human resources official who doesn't know how to tell a real degree from a bogus one approves a degree and later regrets so doing. The human resource director doesn't know what to say except that there was no policy. And the county executive has his spokeswoman give a good cover your ass story for him. Where does the buck stop, for cryin' out loud?

 

Let me play devil's advocate for just a minute...

Sgt. FUDA is 52 - and perhaps like a lot of people he is not keeping abreast of education scams and legitimately thought it was a valid degree... He must have - considering he submitted it and was running for Sheriff - surely he knew that his credentials would be challenged if they were not what they were supposed to be. Granted ignorance is not always an excuse, but there are cases where ignorance and misinformation / lack of understanding must be considered when making a decision.

While I agree that any degree earned entirely through 'life experiences' is bogus, I also keep abreast of information. This website is a fantastic source of information and had Sgt. FUDA stumbled upon it like many of us, I am certain he would have been a great deal wiser and would have obtained a degree through a valid DL facility.

Don't forget that we all get bombared with SPAM every single day about countless offers and the good old Nigerian letter scam is in full tilt... How many Seniors get caught by things such as the Nigerian Letter scam and lose their life savings? It is such as well known scam to us - us who try to stay informed by researching issues of interest on the internet, etc. before making a decision.

I know of several folks who received e-mails which appear to be from a recognized organization ( eBAY, your bank.. ) and foolishly click on the link and provide their UID/Client Card#'s and passwords, thinking that it is a legit request - only to find out their bank accounts were lightened by many $!

I also find it interesting how quickly some folks scream bloody murder and think Sgt. FUDA should lose his job - what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

And while I shake my finger at Sgt. FUDA in dismay , I also pity him - he will be facing some tough times for what may have been an honest mistake...

 

Unfortunately some ( if not most ) HR folks are clueless when it comes to education scams. While they should be on this site and other accredidation sites whenever they review a resume, they are not.

After all, we can not just go by the names of institutions! A little while ago I did a research project and during my Google search came across a rather interesting website which offered fake degrees - which included an authentic looking certificate as well as an 'official' transcript - what made this site more interesting is that it let a person input the institution it should be from! It required a person to enter their SIN, Birth date, school start date, graduation date, etc, etc and for ~$300-500 you could have a degree from..say... Excelsior.

Since we are all aware of these scams, I say we need to go to our HR departments and make them aware of these mills - a phone call to the institution to verify graduation and degree would take all but 5 minutes and may save <insert whatever you'd like> later on.

Did they offer a cover-your-ass-story, or did they stipulate a degree from a 4 year degree granting institution? While it is 'understood' that it should be from an accredited institution, if it's not written down it is open for interpretation. No it's not right to do that - but it's a fact... As sad as it is, policies have to be written to be fool-proof - the ability for interpretation has to be removed and with it all doubt as to what is and what is not acceptable.

Where does the buck stop? ..usually, crap flows downhill, and whoever is standing at the bottom ends up catching it...

 

I don't believe that this is ever the case. I don't believe that anyone really believes that they can get a degree for a few hundred dollars just for happening to something about a particular subject area, whether it's because they've watched alot of public television or read alot of articles and books; and/or because they have a hobby or two that happens to have taught them some things about some things; and/or because they go to church; and/or because they've taken a few non-credit (or even for-credit) courses; and/or because they've had some specialized training in something; and/or or because they've showed-up for work every day for twenty or thirty years and, therefore, knows pretty much everything there is to know about whatever it is they do for a living. I think your assumption, right out of the gate, simply defies logic.

Again, you assume too much. People who get diploma mill degrees are counting on no one to have the time, energy or interest; and that it would just go unnoticed.

Ignorance is never an excuse. Any law enforcement officer has heard "...but I didn't know..." a zillion times in his career; and his training is that ignorance of the law is no excuse. For a law enforcement officer to claim ignorance of the ins and outs of college degrees is no better than a perp who claims ignorance of the law. Anyway, there's no ignorance of anything going on here. The guy knew EXACTLY what he was doing... count on it!

Sure... when someone buys the wrong kind of margarine. But not with something like this... especially when there was no ignorance or misinformation. It's simply not possible that he didn't know what he was doing. He's counting, I remind you, on empathetic, give-em-the-benefit-of-the-doubt types like you to cut him some slack. Don't fall for it!

Only because he would have observed how many people than he thought actually know what's up and how it all works. This place, had he found it, would not have educated him in the ways of proper degree acquisition; rather, it simply might have disabused him of his belief that no one would notice and/or that he would not ever have been caught. There's a difference. You're projecting onto him your own, good moral values. Everyone does it.

If you really understood how the Nigerian letter scam really worked, you'd realize that the "victim" is being invited to do something that even someone raised by wolves would know is not on the up-and-up. The "victim" is trying to pull a fast one himself by taking the Nigerian up on his offer. There's no honor in that; nor is there any reason to think of the "victim" as innocent when/if s/he falls for it and gets fleeced or, worse, has his/her throat slit when s/he gets off the plan in Nigeria to consummate the deed.

The Nigerian letter thing is different, apparently, than what you're thinking. That said, there are many scams aimed at seniors that easily demonstrate/illustrate what you're trying to say, so your point is not lost on... well... on at least me. But even then, it comes back to some of the oldest maxims in the book: "There ain't no free lunches"; or "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." I could go on and on. Look more closely at these senior scams. Some of them truly snare the innocent. But alot more of them are similar to the Nigerian letter in at least one way: They "victim" is trying to take advantage of some windfall opportunity that, if they stopped to think about it, would almost have to also mean that someone else was being harmed or was losing money, etc. And where's the honor in that? When did greed become honorable?

What you describe is called phishing, and it's one of the Internet's biggest problems... but a problem which, if they'd just bother to take two seconds to learn, they'd understand. The FREE anti-phishing or how-to-protect-yourself-against-phishing information is everywhere!

But that's a "some-people-shouldn't-be-using-the-Internet-if-they-don't-bother-to-understand-its-pitfalls" issue. We live in a world full of people who would rather try the software and see if they can figure it out than read the instruction manual. Such people get what they deserve.

And, anyway, is there really anyone who hasn't heard of the dangers of the Internet? I just got an elderly couple finally connected, over their strong objections because of all the horror stories that they, even at their ages, had read. Even they knew that it was fraught with danger and that there was something special that they should do to protect themselves. There's no one alive who doesn't know they should be using some kind of software to protect them against viruses/worms/trojans, yet if you gathered 100 randomly-selected computer end-users into a room and asked them if they knew that they should be doing something to protect themselves against viruses/worms/trojans, something like 88 of them would say that they did. But then if you ased them precisely what they're doing, something like 98 of them would provide answers ranging from "nothing" to something that's so wholly inadequate that even they realize they're screwing-up. The vast majority of them, even if they were running McAfee or Norton, wouldn't have updated their virus definition files for years at a time. If the information weren't not only out there, but shoved down their throats in magazines, newspapers, the consumer protection part of the evening news, maybe it would be different. But it is, and they still don't get it. They get what they deserve!

I don't know if he should lose his job. Maybe that is going too far. I don't know. I guess I'd need to know more of the details and hear from his own mouth what happened. But it was right for his opponent to out him. It is an election, after all. And he should not win it. Integrity matters, and getting a diploma mill degree, putting it on one's resume, and using it to get paid more, is unethical and shows a profound lack of integrity. Someone like that should not be the elected Sheriff.

Don't waste too many tears. Trust me -- and I know you won't and that you'll hold-on to your doubt -- if there were a way for you and I to dig into this thing together, and really see what really happened, you'd quickly realize that this guy is slimy; and that your empathy was misplaced. And then you'd go from where you are now -- which, incidentally, is nice and humanitarian and just makes me like you more -- to being just plain angry.

 

Thanks, Gregg. Misplaced sentimentalism has no place.

 

1. If the HR folks are clueless about accreditation issues, why are they working in HR? That would be like hiring a quarterback who can't throw and/or doesn't know that he's got four chances to make the ball go 10 yards in a forwards direction.

2. The cover your ass story offered by King County Executive Ron Sims' spokeswoman was: "The managers of the departments are responsible to make sure that stuff is done right." In the real world, the top dog is responsible for his own doings and those of his underlings. The human resource director said that there is no policy. Upper management should be setting policy for lower managers to implement.

3. As you noted, policies should be written to be fool-proof.

4. There's the problem: everyone's trying to throw the crap downhill. Ultimate responsibility ("the buck") stops at the top. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

NB: This post in no way exonerates the Seattle cop in question. Mind you, however, it does advocate that HR ought to take their fair share of the shit when it hits the fan.

 

There's the rub. Employees should not have to teach their human resource departments about education and accreditation issues. Human resource departments should be the ones teaching their employees about education and accreditation issues. If you don't know about education and accreditation issues, you don't belong working in a human resource department and your job should be taken by someone who does know.

 

Unfortunately Ted...that isn't how it always happens. I can tell you for certain that I am far more knowledgeable than my HR dept about accreditation and the legitimacy thereof. In fact at one point they denied a tuition reimbursement until the school itself explained accreditation to the HR person...I was embarrassed for her.

 

That's true. In a perfect world, people would actually be knowledgeable about their jobs. In such a world, people could (and would actually think to) go to their HR departments and ask (preferably beforehand), "Will this degree pass muster with this company?" And the good people in HR would actually be knowledgeable enough to give a "Yes" or "No" answer, with an intelligent explanation as to why. In an ideal world, we could simply clone Dr. Bear and Dr. Douglas and a few others from this board a few thousands of times over and everyone could have an actual smart person in HR. But, alas, then there is the real world.

 

I have to agree with Gregg.

Sgt. Fuda is an experienced law enforcement officer, I highly doubt that he didn't know exactly what he was doing, and what he was getting.

 

Our Sgt. Fuda already held a two-year degree from a local community college and it was earned within the past several years. I would assume he must have wondered how come this advanced degree-earning process was so much, um, easier.

 

I couldn't agree more. It appears that both police departments and fire departments are especially vulnerable to exploitation by degree mills and those who make use of same. It also appears that the teaching profession is really cracking down on bogus degrees, and news reports from around the country show that educators holding phoney degrees (usually bogus master's degrees and doctorates in education which automatically kick teachers and administrators into a higher salary category) are typically summarily dismissed. It is high time that the law enforcement and firefighter communities take a similarly tough stand.

 

Sgt. Fuda to New Zealand???

Maybe "Dr." Neil Hayes will use the power of his bogus doctorate and his QSM (Queen's Service Medal) to get Sgt. Fuda a law enforcement job in New Zealand? Considering Hayes' relationship with the conservation community due to his work with the brown teal ducks, perhaps an opening in wildlife law enforcement is in Fuda's future?

Seriously, Fuda's second biggest mistake (after buying a bogus degree) was in running for an elected office and not expect his background to be scrutinized.

 

From my experience in dealing with HR Managers through my work, it seems that despite SHRM's efforts to professionalize the field, it remains in large part a haven of management's wives and girlfriends.

I certainly don't intend to paint every HR professional with a broad stroke, but from my work in EEO compliance I'm amazed at the number of HRMs who are woefully ignorant of an important function of their jobs.