Current Events in February 2012

W & C International Import Inc. is recalling “Rely” Dried Yellow Croaker because the product was found to be un-eviscerated.

The recalled “Rely” Dried Yellow Croaker was distributed nationwide in bulk cardboard boxes. The “Rely” Dried Yellow Croaker is a product of China.

The “Rely” Dried Yellow Croaker was sampled by a New York State Department of Agriculture Food Inspector during inspection. Subsequent analysis of the product by New York State Food Laboratory personnel confirmed that the “Rely” Dried Yellow Croaker was not properly eviscerated prior to processing.

The sale of un-eviscerated fish is prohibited under New York State Agriculture and Markets regulations because Clostridium Botulinum spores are more likely to be concentrated in the viscera than any other portion of the fish. Uneviscerated fish have been linked to outbreaks of botulium poisioning.

This product may be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum spores, which can cause Botulism, a serious and potentially fatal food-borne illness. Symptoms of botulism include blurred or double vision, general weakness, poor reflexes, difficulty in swallowing and respiratory paralysis.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers that have purchased “Rely” Dried Yellow Croaker are advised not to eat it and should return it to the place of purchase. Consumer with questions may contact the company at (718) 381-2932.

 W & C International Import Inc. is recalling “Rely” Sardine Anchovies because the product was found to be un-eviscerated.

The recalled “Rely” Sardine Anchovies were distributed nationwide in 7.0 oz. plastic packages.  The “Rely” Sardine Anchovies are a product of China.

The “Rely” Sardine Anchovies were sampled by a New York State Department of Agriculture Food Inspector during inspection.  Subsequent analysis of the product by New York State Food Laboratory personnel confirmed that the “Rely” Sardine Anchovies were not properly eviscerated prior to processing. 

The sale of un-eviscerated fish is prohibited under New York State Agriculture and Markets regulations because Clostridium Botulinum spores are more likely to be concentrated in the viscera than any other portion of the fish.  Uneviscerated fish have been linked to outbreaks of botulium poisioning.

This product may be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum spores, which can cause Botulism, a serious and potentially fatal food-borne illness.  Symptoms of botulism include blurred or double vision, general weakness, poor reflexes, difficulty in swallowing and respiratory paralysis.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers that have purchased “Rely” Sardine Anchovies are advised not to eat it and should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (718) 381-2932.

Morton's steakhouses are known for serving large chunks of animal protein but the new owner of the chain may be finding he bit off more than he can chew.

On the same day he completed acquisition of the Chicago-based nationwide chain, Texas billionaire Tilman J. Fertitta closed locations in Boston, Phoenix, Miami Beach, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Denver, Brooklyn and Tysons Corner, Va, according to published reports.

As of late last month, the company owned and operated 77 Morton’s steakhouses located in 64 cities across 26 states, Puerto Rico and six international locations, according to Morton's.

Fertitta, who also owns the Landry’s chain, paid about $179 million for Morton's, which bills itself as the "world’s largest operator of company-owned upscale steakhouses."

Victoria's Secret has always been a sexy brand. A lot of women, it appears, think it's just too sexy.

“I am disgusted with the Victoria's Secret commercials,” said Lily, of Chino, Calif. “Practically porn! My kids are watching a family show then the stupid commercial comes on! I'm with my husband watching TV then he starts ignoring me because he is practically hypnotized by those Victoria's Secret models!”

Lily says the commercials have gone too far, making women feel ashamed of their bodies. That sentiment is echoed by others writing to ConsumerAffairs.com, including Brionna, of Bonifay, Fla., who says she struggles every day to feel pretty like the Victoria's Secret models.

“The thing is, I'm gorgeous too,” Brionna told ConsumerAffairs.com. “It still sucks when you're with your boyfriend and they come on and he stares. I'm not married, and I'm glad. With such lack of respect in society from women and these kinds of companies, what's the point? It makes me feel horrible about myself. I'd also like to add that I'm only 20 years old. There are only a few women born with unnaturally long, lean, beautiful legs. And trying so hard to make myself look like that so I can strive to be sexually attractive to a male, is killing me! I'm tired of it.”

Victoria's Secret isn't likely to change their ads in response to complaints. After all, they're in this to sell sexy underwear.

But with Valentines Day coming up, maybe men could make the women in their lives feel a little better if they weren't so obviously entranced when the Victoria's Secret commercials come on.

Paula, of Jackson, N.J., has an expensive problem. She says she was booking flights for her parents on Expedia when the transaction failed to complete. When she called customer service, she said she was told the transaction was suspended because the price of the tickets had just gone up. She said the representative asked if she wanted to confirm the flights and she said she told him no, and later booked reservations on another site.

“One week later on my credit card statement I see a charge for that Expedia flight - never received a confirmation email concerning the flight, no documentation whatsoever,” Paula told ConsumerAffairs.com. “I called them again to get this straightened out and the rep said it was some sort of 72 hour authorization thing - he said no to worry. So I didn't.”

Turns out, she should have. She says the purchase is still on her card and Expedia tells her they have no record of any of her calls to customer service.

“They said that the airline is not going to refund the ticket - a ticket I never confirmed,” she said. If anyone has any ideas, please contact me. I have till the middle of the month to get the charge dispute settled or else I am stuck paying it.”

Paula might try calling her credit card company's fraud department. Technically, she can argue that the charge is “unauthorized,” since she says she specifically did not confirm it. It will be up to Expedia to provide the authorization proof. The stakes are pretty high, since Paula said the charge is for $3,000.

Will this movie ever end?

Consumers are still getting collection notices from the now-defunct Hollywood Video. Jeff, of Martinez, Calif., is one of the most recent to file a complaint.

“I'm receiving collections notices from ARM solutions about a past account with Hollywood Video,” Jeff said. “Our account was in good standing when the local store closed. Collections company does not answer calls and has failed to provide documentation that debt is actually owed. This is a fraudulent attempt to collect money based on poor accounting practices and corporate greed.”

Since Hollywood Video closed its doors, several debt collectors have been involved in contacting its former customers with claims of past due amounts. At the time of its closing, Hollywood Video contracted with Credit Control Services to collect an estimated $244 million. Last May the liquidating trust for Hollywood Video settled with a number of states, reacting to consumers like Jeff. Within five days after Jeff was first contacted, the collector was required to send a written notice telling him the amount owed; the name of the creditor ; and what action to take if he believes he does not owe the money.

Satisfied, sort of

Beth, of Jacksons Gap, Ala. wants us to know that, despite earlier problems getting satisfaction from Eden Pure, the company has agreed to a full refund.

“We would not buy another one but are happy we did not have to eat the $400 we paid,” Beth said.

Beth says she knows people who have been happy with their Edenpure heaters, but she's among the consumers who found the space heater unsatisfactory.

A Los Angeles lawyer who opted out of a class-action settlement has won a small claims court lawsuit against Honda Motor Co. that will pay her roughly 100 times what the class action would have.

"I am absolutely thrilled at the reports that I won, even though I won't see the actual judgment until it comes in the mail.  It's a victory for Civic Hybrid owners everywhere!  Sometimes big justice comes in small packages," Heather Peters said in an email to ConsumerAffairs.com.

Peters sued Honda alleging that the automaker exaggerated the fuel efficiency of her 2006 Civic Hybrid.  

Although it could not be immediately confirmed, Peters said she won $9,867 in Los Angeles Small Claims Court. She would have been eligible to receive about $100 in cash and a $500 coupon towards a new car under the class-action settlement, Peters said.

Peters was miffed after she determined her Civic Hybrid didn't get the 50 miles per gallon the carmaker claimed.  After rejecting the class-action settlement, she filed her own suit in Small Claims Court, which allows citizens to file cases without a lawyer.

Small claims advantage

Consumer advocates have long pointed consumers towards the small claims courts as a way to settle disputes with companies and other individuals. Laws vary from state to state but in general, the damages sought must be below a set amount, often around $10,000.  ConsumerAffairs.com publishes a state-by-state guide to small claims courts around the country.

In many cases, when consumers sue large corporations, the companies do not bother to send a representative and the consumer wins by default. On the other hand, businesses are increasingly turning towards small claims courts in many states to sue consumers in disputes over payments, refunds and other issues.

Not done fighting

Peters, meanwhile, is not done with her crusade against Honda. Last week, she submitted evidence to all 50 state attorneys general urging them to look into whether they can bring action against Honda on behalf of consumers in their states.  She said last week that AGs from California, Iowa, Michagan, Ohio and Washington contacted her to confirm they are looking into the case. 

A big day is coming up. No, not the Super Bowl. The other big day in February, Valentines Day.

This year, as in years past, consumers will order flowers for their sweeties and hope they arrive on time, without incident. The question is, will you order them directly from a florist or use one of the web-based third party floral marketing companies?

Doing business with one company, and having it turn around and do business with another company to fill your order, is a classic middleman situation. With more people involved in a transaction, more things can go wrong. Just ask Shauger, of Morris, Minn., who placed an order with 1-800-Flowers.

Opening night disappointment

“I ordered flowers to be delivered for the opening night for a friend's high school play, her first time as a teacher and director,” Shauer told ConsumerAffairs.com. “No flowers were delivered. No contact made to me to tell me they couldn't find a florist in the area. So, no flowers. When the recipient didn't mention the flowers at all, I contacted 1-800-flowers. I was told they couldn't deliver them due to a failure to find an appropriate florist. Again, these are no good late. They offered to refund half my money. Half? They didn't deliver anything!”

Other floral sites, including JustFlowers.com, also draw similar consumer complaints. Bob, of Hamilton, Ohio, says he works for a florist and contacted ConsumerAffairs.com after reading some of the complaints.

“I'll explain to all of you complaining about how it works with Just Flowers,” Bob said. “They take your order and send it to a real local florist. Just Flowers has never ever delivered one arrangement to anyone. Everyone of their orders is sent to some florist that's local to the delivery address, even if it's near their own physical location. There is absolutely zero of a business connection between them and the florist they use.”

Sometimes such an arrangement works out fine, but as the complaints suggest there's plenty of room for error. So, what's the alternative?

An alternative

The alternative is to do exactly what these companies would do, find a local florist in the delivery area and deal directly with them. As a first step, go to Google or one of the other search engines and enter “florist” and the town or city where the delivery is to be made.

You'll find a list of florists, possibly laid out on a map, so you can see which local florists are close to your point of delivery. By going to the local florist's website, you can get a feel for the kinds of products they provide.

Talk to the florist

By clicking on the “contact” tab, you'll get an email or phone number. It's usually a good idea to call, so you can talk to the florist directly and ask questions. If they can't make the delivery, they'll tell you. You won't find out later in an email.

You can pay the local florist right over the phone, by giving your credit card information. So really, ordering the flowers locally is much like using a national, third party site - except that you are dealing directly with the florist.

Third party websites for flowers and travel sprang up in the early days of the Internet, when many local businesses did not have an Internet presence. Today, almost all local businesses do, and some of their websites are quite sophisticated.

It might take a little more effort on your part, but dealing directly with the florist who will make the flower arrangement and deliver it to your sweetie might yield better results. After all, Valentines is a big day. You don't want to take unnecessary chances.

Many diets urge followers to avoid potatoes, but a new study suggests the spud could actually be a health food.

Researchers writing in the  Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry say two small helpings of purple potatoes (Purple Majesty) a day decreases blood pressure by about 4 percent without causing weight gain. That may not sound like much, but the researchers say the decrease is sufficient to potentially reduce the risk of several forms of heart disease.

Researcher Joe Vinson and colleagues point out that people in the U.S. eat more potatoes than any other vegetable. Purple-skinned potatoes, a boutique variety increasingly available in food stores, are noted for having high levels of healthful antioxidant compounds.

In Korea, purple potatoes are renowned in folk medicine as a way to lose weight. Vinson's team decided to investigate the effects of eating 6-8 small microwaved purple potatoes twice a day on 18 volunteers, most of whom were overweight with high blood pressure.

The volunteers ate potatoes or no potatoes for four weeks, and then switched to the opposite regimen for another four weeks while researchers monitored systolic and diastolic blood pressure, body weight and other health indicators.

Average diastolic blood pressure dropped by 4.3 percent and systolic pressure decreased by 3.5 percent. The majority of subjects took anti-hypertensive drugs and still had a reduction in blood pressure.

Nobody gained weight

As a bonus, none of the study participants gained weight. Vinson said that other studies have identified substances in potatoes with effects in the body similar to those of the well-known ACE-inhibitor medications, a mainstay for treating high blood pressure. But he suspects that the effects may be due to other substances in potatoes.

The scientists do not know yet whether ordinary white potatoes have the same beneficial effects. And chances are, French fries don't either.

Potatoe are part of the Solanaceae or nightshade family, along with tomatoes, peppers and eggplants. Potatoes provide a wide range of important nutrients to the diet and are a particularly good source of complex carbohydrates, potassium, vitamin C, folic acid and iron.  

Peggy, of Chrisney, Ind., says she purchased a Cuisinart coffee maker less than a year ago and this week the wiring overheated and burned.

“I want satisfaction from the company,” Peggy told ConsumerAffairs.com. “Can I return this to the place I purchased it or will Cuisinarat make this good? Someone should make this right for the price I paid for the product. With all the complaints on this site, why has Cuisinart not recalled their product?”

To answer Peggy's first place, no, she should not return the item to the retail store. Instead, she should contact Cuisinart directly. In all likelihood the product has a one-year warranty so Peggy should be covered.

As for Peggy's second questions, companies usually don't recall products unless they are forced to. And that doesn't happen unless lots of consumers complain to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Common problem?

So is this a common problem?  It certainly seems to be, judging from the 100 or so complaints we've received at ConsumerAffairs.com.  Here's a sampling:

• Lawrence of Hinckley, OH: Purchased a Cuisinart Coffee Maker for our office less than 1 year ago. This morning, 1-31-12, the girls in the office heard a crackling sound. Upon further investigation, smelled strong electrical burning and discovered smoke pouring out of the coffee maker.
• HP of Valrico, FL: Cuisinart 12-cup coffee pot after less than one year of use caused an "electrical melt down" a few days ago. Had I not been home, who knows the extent of damage it could cause? After checking online evidently this has been a "known" problem!
• L of Syracuse, NY: As in all other posts, loud crackling noise, smoke pouring from coffeemaker. Luckily, I was home. DCC2200 model was purchased in Feb 2011. I absolutely cannot believe that a recall has not been issued. I am not hopeful they will honor my refund request. I will certainly not be buying a Cuisnart small appliance in the future.

But in the social media world, the little birds are tweeting and everyone's smiling, at least according to a computerized sentiment analysis of about 750 comments on Twitter, Facebook and so forth.

Why the disparity?  Hard to say but if 100 or so people have a problem and 700 or so don't, that's still not very good odds.  A prudent consumer might consider that one in eight chance of having a meltdown in the kitchen and look elsewhere.

---

Sentiment analysis powered by NetBase

A couple whose 3-month-old daughter died in 2004 can sue the makers of a baby sling despite a statute of limitations and despite the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) finding that the death was a "freakish accident," a federal judge ruled, according to Courthouse News Service.

Ann Heneghan placed her 3-month old daughter, Cathleen Delia Ross, in the Nojo Original Baby Sling for approximately 10 to 15 minutes while shopping in October 2004. When Heneghan tried to put Cathleen back in her car seat, she noticed the child was unresponsive and called paramedics. The child was resuscitated, but eventually found to be brain dead and taken off life support.

Heneghan and her husband John Ross say they were originally told that Cathleen had died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), and that the medical examiner never mentioned the Nojo sling as a possible cause of death.

"Asphyxia by snugli"

The death was reported to the CPSC, which investigated and called the infant's death a "terrible, freakish accident" involving SIDS and found the sling was not defective, even though the suit says an emergency room doctor called the case "asphyxia by snugli."

But the commission was later to find that similar slings had been implicated in multiple infant deaths and in March 2010, warned that parents should exercise extreme caution when using the slings and said it had learned of at least 14 deaths associated with sling-type carriers in the last 20 years.

A few days later, Infantino LLC recalled one million infant slings following reports of three infant deaths. That's when Heneghan and Ross say they first became aware that the Nojo sling might have played a role in Cathleen's death.

Though the recalled sling was a different brand, it was allegedly of the same type. The commission also emailed Heneghan with its new warning about the suffocation hazard posed by slings in the first few months of life.

According to the suit, Heneghan then contacted the medical examiner who had conducted the original investigation and discovered for the first time that her daughter's death was the result of positional asphyxiation -- not Sudden Infant Death Syndrome as she had been told previously.

No warning

The suit claims that the sling's manufacturer, Crown Crafts Infant Products, failed to warn consumers that the sling should not be used with infants under four months old because of asphyxiation dangers. Henegan later amended her suit to include Dr. William Sears. She says she bought the Nojo sling after reading about it in Sears' parenting guide, "The Baby Book."

In a motion for summary judgment, Sears and Crown Crafts said a three-year statute of limitations bars the couple's suit. But U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan denied the motion. The case is set to go to trial on June 4. 

The Federal Trade Commission has stopped an operation that targeted payday loan seekers and charged them for worthless programs without their consent. A settlement order requires the defendants to pay more than $9.9 million and bans them from marketing negative-option programs, which charge recurring fees until a consumer cancels.

According to the FTC's complaint, Michael Bruce Moneymaker, Daniel de la Cruz, and their companies obtained consumers' personal information from websites that claimed to match consumers with payday lenders.

Then, without consumers' consent, they enrolled them in negative-option programs that cost an initial fee of up to $49.99, plus weekly or monthly recurring fees of up to $19.98, and did not provide promised refunds. The court subsequently halted the allegedly illegal practices and froze the defendants' assets, pending trial.

The settlement order also bans the defendants from marketing secured loan products, and permanently prohibits them from:

• obtaining consumers' account information from third parties;
• charging consumers without clearly disclosing all material terms before consumers provide account information;
• charging consumers without their consent;
• disclosing consumers' account information for any commercial purpose other than the transaction for which it was obtained;
• failing to disclose clearly the seller's name, a product/service description, the fact that the consumer will be charged and the amount, the terms of any refund or cancellation policy, and all material terms of any loan, credit, or credit improvement product.

In addition, the order bars the defendants from making the following misrepresentations:

• that they will use consumers' authorizations to further consumers' payday loan applications;
• the purpose for which consumers' account information will be used;
• any material aspect of any refund or cancellation policy, including that consumers provided their consent to buy something and would pay, that consumers are entitled to a refund only if they ask for a refund during a trial period, and that the defendants will provide a refund;
• the benefits of a product or service unless substantiated;
• that the consumer has contacted a third-party customer service, call center, or consumer rights organization;
• any affiliation with a bank or bank processing center, or with a customer of a financial institution;
• the status of any user or endorser of a product or service;
• any material terms of a credit-related good or service, or that a loan or credit-related good or service will increase a consumer's credit score or credit worthiness; and
• any other material facts, such as the total costs, the timing or manner of any charge, any restrictions or limitations, or any material aspects of a product's benefits.

President Obama today elaborated on his plan, announced in his State of the Union message, to help American homeowners with high mortgage rates refinance to a lower rate.

“While the government cannot fix the housing market on its own, the President believes that responsible homeowners should not have to sit and wait for the market to hit bottom to get relief when there are measures at hand that can make a meaningful difference, including allowing these homeowners to save thousands of dollars by refinancing at today’s low interest rates,” the White House said in a statement.

Creditworthy homeowners

The President’s plan would provide borrowers who are current on their payments with an opportunity to refinance and take advantage of historically low interest rates, cutting through red tape. To take advantage of the plan, borrowers would have to be current on their mortgage payments. According to the White House, it would simplify the process, provide a full disclosure of fees and protect against unwarranted foreclosure. It's designed to help homeowners like Damaris, of San Antonio, Tex.

“I'm a first time homebuyer, but when the market dropped so did the value of my home,” Damaris told ConsumerAffairs.com. “I was planning to refinance so I decided to go with the bank who I had my original loan with, which was Bank of America. After numerous hours spent on the phone with the loan officer, my loan was denied without explanation. After two months of going through the process, the day we were supposed to sign, the auditor tells us it was canceled.”

The plan would also attempt to turn some properties already in foreclosure into rental housing, taking them off the real estate market where they are driving down prices. Officials say it would also help stabilize neighborhoods. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), in conjunction with Treasury and HUD, is announcing a pilot sale of foreclosed properties to be transitioned into rental housing.

Aid to the unemployed

The plan is also designed to provide assistance to homeowners who are out of work. The Administration is calling on major banks and Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to provide up to 12 months of forbearance to unemployed borrowers.

The refinancing plan is also aimed at helping homeowners whose mortgages are “under water,” meaning they owe more than the home's current market value. Sometimes homeowners with good credit and clean payment histories are rejected because their mortgages are underwater. In other cases, they are rejected because the banks are worried that they will be left taking losses, even where Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac insure these new mortgages.  In the end, the White House says, these responsible homeowners are stuck paying higher interest rates, costing them thousands of dollars a year.

Under the proposal, borrowers with loans insured by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac will have access to streamlined refinancing through the GSEs. Borrowers with standard non-GSE loans will have access to refinancing through a new program run through the FHA.  

Pigs are being mistreated at two Oklahoma facilities that are major suppliers ot pork to Walmart, the Humane Society of the United States charges.  The group has filed legal complaints with the U.S. Securities and Exchange and Federal Trade Commission alleging false and misleading statements about animal care by one of the producers.

The videos, shot in late 2011, were taken at two Goodwell, Okla. pig breeding facilities — one owned by Seaboard Foods and the other by Prestage Farms—and allegedly show animals suffering inside cramped gestation crates and, in some cases, at the hands of abusive employees. 

The group says its graphic videos document prolonged suffering of pigs used for breeding who are confined in cages so small the animals can't even turn around, rendering them virtually immobilized for their entire lives.

Seaboard disputed the allegations and Prestage said it has launched an internal investigation. Seaboard is the nation's third-largest pork producer, and a supplier to Walmart. Prestage is the nation's fifth-largest pork producer.

"We’ve reviewed documented employee actions alleging abuse and listened to the recent discussions questioning U.S. industry practices of sow gestation, swine tail cutting (or docking) and swine castration, and strongly dispute any allegations of abuse," the company said in a prepared statement. "We are committed to the proper and humane treatment of animals, and we believe animals can and should be raised, transported and processed using procedures that are safe and free from cruelty and neglect."

"We have already initiated an internal investigation to assure that company policies and procedures are being followed, said Prestage Farms’ Ron Prestage, DVM. "If a determination is made that any employee of the company engaged in activities contrary to the policies they agreed to follow, we will take disciplinary action as appropriate, including termination of employment, as is provided in our animal welfare policy. This has been done before when a violation of our policies has been identified."

"The pork industry's notorious disregard for animal welfare is perhaps greater than in any other sector of the meat industry," said Paul Shapiro, HSUS senior director of farm animal protection. "Permanently cramming pigs into cages so small they can barely move is simply out of step with mainstream American values about the proper treatment of animals."

Seaboard Foods' own animal welfare advisor, Temple Grandin, Ph.D. has stated, "I feel very strongly that we've got to treat animals right, and the gestation stalls have got to go." Grandin has also stated, "Confining an animal for most of its life in a box in which it is not able to turn around does not provide a decent life."

In today's world of social media, job applicants have been cautioned about what they put on Facebook, since employers often search applicants' names online. Embarrassing photographs and postings might prevent you from getting the job you want.

But can what's on Facebook also get you fired? Janet Decker, a University of Cincinnati assistant professor in UC's Educational Leadership Program, says it can, especially if you are a teacher.

Though she does not cite specific numbers, Decker says that a “large number” of educators have been fired for Internet activity. She says that some teachers have been dismissed for behavior such as posting a picture of themselves holding a glass of wine.

Technology outpacing the law

"Despite the evolving issues, the courts have not provided extensive guidance for administrators," Decker wrote in an article for the January issue of Principal Navigator, an education journal. "Part of the difficulty is that technology advances at a quicker pace than legal precedent, leaving school employees and administrators unsure of their legal responsibilities."

Decker's article highlights cases that have landed in court as a result of school policies on social networking that "were not clear or effective." The article also examines the law surrounding sexual harassment or abuse of students and freedom of speech for public employees and employee privacy.

"In general, it is important to understand that school employees are expected to be role models both inside and outside of school – even while on Facebook," concludes Decker.

What school boards should do

Decker says it's not enough for schools to have written policies; schools should also offer professional development about these issues. By doing so, she says, staff is notified about the expectations and they have a chance to digest and ask questions about the content of the policies.

She also says school boards should create separate student and staff policies. Much of the law pertaining to students and staff is different. School boards must also be sure than their policies conform to state and federal law.

As for personnel, give some thought to what you post on Facebook and other social media sites. Once it's out there, it's out there. It can potentially affect your profession life, not just your private life.