Norcross.Talk

By Nostradamus

July 23, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Nasooti’s scheme to bring minor-independent league baseball to Gwinnett is nothing more than a scam to line his own pockets with public dollars. Or, to be more precise, to funnel those dollars into the accounts of those Masters who have Bertie in their fat hip pockets. This scheme will, if it slips through, be referred to in later years as a “scandal” when all the details transpire.

By justin

July 23, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

And some wonder why it’s hard to get good people to run for public office. What a piece of crap column. If you can do better Woody, make a run for it and find out what it feels like to have folks spew about the job YOU do.

By ImWatching

July 23, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

Right on Woody. But there’s more than just the level of attention to District 2 that must be considered. How about Nasuti’s history and who the man consorts with? A few facts that bear mentioning:

Nasuti’s Planning Commissioner Rico Figlioni was the person that Bill McKinney (Charles Bannister’s long time campaign manager and business partner) tried to persuade to conceal evidence during the Jodie Rosser/Kevin Kenerly election. This is a felony count that the Gwinnett DA is pursuing now.

Nasuti placed John Dunn (a defeated commissioner who has his own checkered past, ethics violation convictions AND was a Bill McKinney client) back in County Government as an appointee from District 2 this year.

Bert used Bill McKinney’s girlfriend Laura Paraguassu as a technical writer during the 2006 campaign at the same time she was running Jodie Rosser’s campaign against Kevin Kenerly. (Paragauassu was later implicated in receiving money from McKinney’s beatkevin.com accounts which triggered questioning from the DA.)

Now Bert (who is a partner in a major law firm) is lining up with Charles Bannister to defend contractors who don’t want the new county ordinance banning illegal labor enforced – all while he worries about a baseball team. (Does ANYONE in Norcross think that getting a baseball team is the biggest problem the community faces? )

Oh, and did I mention that Bert’s law firm has a special exemption so he can vote hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of county business to his own firm every year with no conflict of interest?

If you’re judged by the company and the actions you take then Bert Nasuti is in trouble.

Gee, I wonder who’s “buddies” are going to own the baseball team?

By Woody Bass

July 23, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

Justin: You live in Peachtree Corners right?

By Rhonda Mcilwrath

July 24, 2007 1:06 AM | Link to this

Is it possible that the Gwinnett county contractors are trying to blackmail the county over the new ordinance that says you can only bid on county contracts if you don’t use illegals in your companies!! Quite a few contractors are threatening to not bid jobs! I personally wonder what these contractors are worried about? If your hiring AMERICAN workers or legal workers you have nothing to worry about!! The money you save by hiring illegals is not savings passed on to the county it is more profit in your pockets!!! By banning together and not bidding on the jobs they hope to force the county to change the ordinance!!! This is exactly what big buisness in this country is trying to do!! Force the country to except their greed for low wage workers at the expense of the AMERICAN people!!I hope Gwinnett county does’t fall for this form of blackmail!!!

By Woody Bass

July 24, 2007 7:54 AM | Link to this

Rhonda: Well we will see if everyone is going to step up to the plate and let them know.

By Michael H. Smith

July 24, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

Well, Woodrow and Rhoda, not as many are stepping up to the plate as I would like. No offense intended Rhoda but I personally think you and I both know what these contractors are worried about?

Illegal alien workers are nothing less than an illegal subsidy for business that is paid for by U.S. citizens and legal alien taxpayers and workers.

This is confirmed by both the Heritage Foundation and the Centers for Immigration Studies.

Let us see if Immigration and Customs Enforcement reads this paper and this section, considering the unfolding events they should have the same exact question you have Rhoda.

Enough so, for I.C.E. to begin investigating these contractors?

There is no doubt that business, various socio-ethnocentric groups (like LaRaza MALDEF and GALEO) even foreign governments like Mexico have all banned together, if not directly certainly mutually in purpose for their cause to force illegal immigration and cheap taxpayer subsidized illegal labor right down the throats of the American people. On that Rhoda you are absolutely correct.

It at times makes you wonder doesn’t Rhoda, do the people around you who pledge their allegiance to the United States of America truly understand what they are saying?

Call it Pollyanna if you must but when an American worker’s livelihood is either threaten or adversely affected, specifically by illegality, if the people who pledge their allegiance to this country do not step-up to the plate then that solemn oath becomes meaningless.

I will continue fight for the American worker because of this very reason: I have a sole sworn allegiance to the American people.

Can’t say much for Mr. Nasuti, though, as it appears he is beginning to back peddle on the new county ordnance (which only complies with federal law) but as it seems the District 4 Commission seat will be open this election time around. I do hope someone with backbone steps up to the plate, who will not run or back down from a fight nor run foolishly into an ill-advised one.

By Woody Bass

July 24, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Michael: I cannot disagree with you. But I will repeat as often as necessary…

Money is the root of all evil.

By Bruce Wilcox

July 24, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Now when Snell Construction tells the commissioners to jump, they’ll jump. Bert knows it and that’s why he was so quick in saying the law needed to be looked at. As far as enforcement, $250,000 down the drain for training. It will take what six months to a year for training, by that time the law that had few teeth in it will be all gums with the changes Bert will push for.

Does anyone believe that the law would be applied equally, that Snell Construction will treated the same as two-truck Joe. Like Broken Windows more broken promises.

Bert lives and moves in an different world than the one he represents.

By Bruce Wilcox

July 24, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Wait a minute, why is this a story now? Why would the companies come out so strongly against when it isn’t even being enforced yet? Why would Bert comment before the companies? I wonder what the complete story is?

By Michael H. Smith

July 24, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Does anyone believe that the law would be applied equally,…

Absolutely not!

U.S. citizens must obey all the laws, contractors operating illegally and illegal aliens are above the law.

Seperate but Equal societies live: Year afta year afta year, time afta time afta time, lie afta lie afta lie… Again, Again and uh, Again!

Even there in your Massachusetts, Senata Kennedy.

And sadly, so it remains, here in our Georgia too!

What part of ILLEGAL don’t they understand.

PS. Woodrow, respectfully, it is the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil. It is becoming all the more obvious that for some Americans their love of money is greater than their love for their country and their loyalty to their fellow Americans.

We must all hang together for assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Ben Franklin

By Bruce Wilcox

July 24, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

I still say we should have passed the bush, McCain and Kennedy Immigration Bill. They’re not going anywhere, at least we could have taxed them.

As far as not going anywhere this ordinance and the reaction is the perfect example.

By Michael H. Smith

July 24, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

NO WAY!

By Michael H. Smith

July 24, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

And by the way they, the illegal aliens are leaving because of bills like SB 529 and SB 38, now state law. Further confirmed by Curt Thompson’s every own statements and other articles appearing in this paper.

By Bruce Wilcox

July 24, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Not to drag this out as usual, but when the bigger companies like Snell Construction can operate without illegal labor I’ll believe it.

By ImWatching

July 24, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Take stock on the five commissioners and where they stand on the labor ordinance issue that would punish contractors who use illegal immigrants on county jobs:

Chairman Bannister – Seems to be backpedaling away from the ordinance, and claims that he doesn’t know if it is legal, though he voted for it.

District 1 Green – Wrote the ordinance, pushed it through, stood up to the contractors and doesn’t seem to be backing down.

District 2 Nasuti – Seems to be back pedaling away from the ordinance and claims that he doesn’t know if it is legal. As a lawyer shouldn’t Nasuti be the ONE person on the board who should have reviewed the ordinance and would know about its legal status?

District 3 Beaudreau – Supported the legislation, spoke in strong support of it and seems to be sticking with it.

District 4 Kenerly – Has been totally quiet on the issue from the word go.

Again, we see a pattern of Nasuti and Bannister acting the same, saying the same things and appearing to have the same agenda. Both appear to be flip flopping by backing away from the ordinance.

Again we see Kenerly acting clueless.

Again we see that Green and Beaudreau appear to be the only two that actually do anything or care about the citizens of the county.

Draw your own conclusions.

By Michael H. Smith

July 24, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

The bigger companies operated 40 years ago without illegal labor and America took in 3.8 million legal aliens in the year 2005 according to Senator Byron Dorgan (D). Bet America didn’t create 3.8 million new jobs in that year? If any drastic labor shortage existed as purported, wages would be skyrocketing in the sectors where illegal aliens are most likely to be employed.

Now who are you going to believe corporations and businesses or the lying facts in reality before your eyes?

Hats off to Senator Byron Dorgan the Democrat who stood tallest and nearly alone amongst all the other Amnesticrats in his party.

By Jim

July 24, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

If you venture out of the South you’ll see lots and lots of guys working on roads and other things and guess what, you won’t see nearly as many hispanics as you do here. So, it’s not a nationwide labor shortage, it’s just that they come here where because there are no unions to keep them out.

Look at the states that have the biggest problems and you’ll see there are no strong unions. Hey, I’m not a big union fan, but I do find it interesting.

By Chuck

July 24, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

No, Woody - the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, but enough about sleazy contractors hiring illegal immigrants, thus defending their law-breaking. Ayway, I’ve known Bert for a good many years now, and I must admit that I too am confused by some of his recent actions (or lack thereof). I can attest that the hip replacement problems were beyond belief, but aside from that I have no clue. He has “clammed up” to his friends and supporters, and many of us that brought him to power have felt like “outsiders” lately. Bannister is still useless and Kenerly an evil idiot, but we still have Lorraine and Mike. In exchange for higher contractor bids, we’ll have to provide less public financial support for our county hospitals, lower insurance rates (uninsured motorist coverage), lower public education costs, decreased criminal justice system expense, WIC, etc. - shall I go on?

By Woody Bass

July 24, 2007 6:50 PM | Link to this

Chuck: I will have to think about the “love of money” argument… although I am not sure I agree.

As for your comment regarding the hospitals, education, etc etc…. they wont cut spending.. lets face it… (ironic that they are all Republicans too ) they will probably raise property taxes (I am guessing). Then Ill have to rant about taxes again.

This is not the first time I have heard of someone becoming disenchanted with Mr. Nasuti. To be honest, I have had this piece written in my head for some time now, but I sat back and waited to see if anything would change and he would get involved once the GV got going… and when I finally had enough it was time for me to say my part. I am glad he is trying to be a good father, husband and look after his business… but he chose to run for office… if he cant do all those effectively then he needs to step down and let us find someone who can and will.

It would be interesting to hear suggestions for his replacement.

By Bruce Wilcox

July 24, 2007 7:44 PM | Link to this

What this county needs is a New York Yankee Liberal to keep them on their toes. Remind you of anyone?

By BobG

July 25, 2007 2:01 AM | Link to this

Bert Nasuti is one of the most principled, honest and effective elected officials that I know. Gwinnett is privileged to have him serve here and District 2— all of it— is well represented by him.

Quite frankly, it was overly simplistic and naive for you compare Peachtree Corners to Buford Highway and recklessly conclude that the differences must solely be the result of poor leadership by one man over a period of just six years.

Regarding the county employment eligibility ordinance, E.R. Snell and the ordinance’s other critics are right— it is ambiguous and unenforceable in its present form. To comply, a contractor would have to violate federal law. Even more, it doesn’t even accomplish one of Commissioner Green’s primary goals, which was to accelerate the phase-in of the provisions of Senate Bill 529 regarding employment eligibility verification.

I told several of the Commissioners as much prior to its adoption. With more space, I could explain what the problems are— I will be happy to elaborate if you want to contact me directly.

The ordinance was a good idea, poorly executed. It is not “back-pedaling” on any Commissioner’s part to want to re-examine the flawed ordinance. I understand that the issue will be revisited in the very near future and problems resolved. I anticipate that Nasuti, the only attorney on the board, will be closely involved in the correction of the flawed law, and that the amended version will be stronger than the current version, if only because it will actually be enforceable.

By Chuck

July 25, 2007 7:09 AM | Link to this

Hey Woody - the “root of all evil” quote is from the Bible - go argue with Him. Incidentally, my wife used to manage contracts for the Defense Department - our Federal Government has verified immigration status of contractors for MANY years - it’s definitely not a problem.

By Woody Bass

July 25, 2007 7:54 AM | Link to this

BobG: With all due respect… he’s been involved for more than 6 years if you include his planning commission work. Also, if he had been more involved with the Gwinnett Village I might have agreed with you and in fact this piece probably wouldnt have happened.

And as I recall Nasuti had plenty of time to review this ordinance - as an attorney - for any “flaws”… i find it odd that he only see its flaws after contractors contacted him about it. The same contractors who are probably breaking the law to begin with.

By Bruce Wilcox

July 25, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

“vouching for its own staff, and not subcontractors. Subcontractors must verify the legal status of their own employees. That satisfied E.R. Snell’s attorneys, he said.”

I said in the begining it was nothing more than a feel-good law without teeth, now it’s just gums. Think about it, the company employs 600, you sign one piece of paper saying, “Yup, all legal here”. Do you really believe that county employees are going into Snell’s files and check each employee. They have admitted breaking federal the federal law already, you really think the county law will scare them. Best part is it only cost us $250,000 dollars to add another worthless ordinance.

Let the contributions roll.

By BobG

July 25, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Woody, regardless of how long Nasuti has been involved in public service, it is still incredibly naive to claim that he is primarily responsible for what you term neglect in the eastern portion of the district. You forget that, up until about five years ago, much the area of which you complain wasn’t even in District 2. It only became so as a result of the most recent redistricting.

In fact, a large part of the now declining area along I-85 was put into District 1 by redistricting, but I don’t see you chewing on Lorraine Green. But you shouldn’t hold her responsible, just like you shouldn’t be charging it all to Nasuti.

If you’re simplistically looking at bad development and drawing that conclusion, I would say that former Commissioner Patti Muise had much more to do with the decline of District 2 than has Nasuti. Find out who was responsible for the high concentration of apartments and low-value housing in that area and you have your guilty party, at least as far as a Commissioner’s limited control over development is concerned.

Compare that to Peachtree Corners, where you have a higher percentage of homeowners— stakeholders in the community. It is pride of ownership and resident involement in community issues that has kept that area nice, not Nasuti’s favoritism.

I understand that you didn’t interview the Commissioner prior to this article. Who was your source regarding his involvement? Did you ever think to verify anything that your disgruntled CID member source told you?

If you would check, you would see that the Commissioner has been personally responsible for directing thousands of dollars toward CID interests in its short history. He has never denied one of the CID’s requests; never made a single rezoning vote contrary to their wishes.

In the CID’s early days, he personally introduced the CID director to the owner of several large, key developments and encouraged that owner to participate when the CID was struggling to generate interest and participation. If you ask the other members of the CID board, you will find that Nasuti reportedly maintains regular contact, even if he doesn’t attend their official meetings.

Somebody on the CID has an axe to grind… and you got played, Woody.

Regarding the employment eligibility ordinance— although he is an attorney, it is not Nasuti’s job on the Commission to write legalese for the county; we have a staff for that. The issue was spearheaded by Green, who would have been the primary member to interact with the county attorneys.

The Commissioners set policy; the legal staff writes the policy and then defends what is approved. Nasuti is no more involved in the writing of policy than is Green, an environmental engineer, involved in the design of the county’s sewer plants.

Nasuti, like the other Commissioners not an expert on employment eligibility verification law, trusted the legal staff to get it right. They did not.

For an informed layman’s analysis of the problems with the ordinance, read this

By BobG

July 25, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

I forgot to mention… E.R. Snell, the loudest and most influential complainant regarding the new ordinance, has already been verifying the employment eligibility of its new hires since February. In other words, the company has been in voluntary compliance with the state law and the spirit of the flawed county ordinance, months before either went into effect.

It is wrong (and evidence of an ignorance of the issue, frankly) for commenters to bash E.R. Snell on this one. The fact is that Snell is right and the county is wrong.

Check out this article for an analysis of what the county needs to fix in this ordinance. At the end, there is a link to a resource where you can verify Snell’s participation in the federal employment eligibility verification program.

By Bruce Wilcox

July 25, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Bob G thanks for your support, I really like the comment, “It is pride of ownership and resident involement in community issues that has kept that area nice, not Nasuti’s favoritism.” So I guess that makes me a scumbag? I guess that must be Bert’s opinion too since you’re acting as his spokesman. There are a lot of people on the other side of Peachtree Industrial that still have pride in their older neighborhoods and work their butts off to keep them up. Maybe if you lower your nose a bit you may see what people are actually trying to do.

By Michael H. Smith

July 25, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

….it is ambiguous and unenforceable in its present form. To comply, a contractor would have to violate federal law. Even more, it doesn’t even accomplish one of Commissioner Green’s primary goals, which was to accelerate the phase-in of the provisions of Senate Bill 529 regarding employment eligibility verification.

I told several of the Commissioners as much prior to its adoption. With more space, I could explain what the problems are— I will be happy to elaborate if you want to contact me directly.

>

Please explain further BobG. According to the blog rules set forth by the AJC you may take as much room or post as much as you think necessary. To use the AJC’s term: “Sky’s the limit”. So no need to hold back or go elsewhere, “the sky’s the limit”.

I e-mailed Commissioner Green requesting a copy of the new ordnance but didn’t get very far and got no copy. Be that as it may.

As you are probably aware SB 529 has phases or steps that become progressively more stringent over time. So at some point in time this new ordnance and SB 529 are going to meet.

In addition a new law in Arizona will have a bearing on all of this. Unfortunately, it will eventually land in the 9th District federal court, the most liberal federal court in the land. I’d rather see the fight take place in the 11th circuit and then to the Supreme Court. As things now stand liabilities are all over the place and conflicts are legion. To mention point in fact: The Hoffman ruling vs. the right to discriminate against hiring an unauthorized alien as set forth on the I-9 form itself.

Anti-Discrimination Notice. It is illegal to discriminate against any individual **(other than an alien not authorized to work in the U.S.) in hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee because of that individual’s national origin or citizenship status. It is illegal to discriminate against work eligible individuals. Employers CANNOT specify which document(s) they will accept from an employee. The refusal to hire an individual because of a future expiration date may also constitute illegal discrimination.

Anyhow, elaborate, if you will Bob. There is another way(possibly several) to skin this illegal cat that I know of, your input may certainly bring to fore a better solution.

PS. I’m out of here for the rest of the day, so I’ll have to get back later to join any further discussion.

By Bruce Wilcox

July 25, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

Have a good day Mr. Smith, Bob G I think Woody’s point was more about the lact of attention and atitude towards the CID and the area in general. I think you just re-enforced the point with your comments. If the board wanted to really address the issue they should pick-up today’s AJC and see what Cobb county has done. Broken Windows will not do much when you have single family homes being turned into boarding houses. We need ordinances that really attck the problems with some teeth in them.

By BobG

July 25, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Bruce, Woody apparently looked at the deterioration of his community and charged total responsibility to the current Commissioner. I simply identified some of the more plausible reasons for some of the problems facing portions of District 2.

I don’t believe that I mentioned you by name even once.

For the record, Nasuti is a client and friend. I have also followed the Commission very closely for the past decade— I can recognize a good Commissioner just as well as I can complain about the bad. My opinions are solely my own; I speak for no other.

Michael, follow the link in my 11:24AM comment to read the ordinance as well as a detailed analysis of the problems with it.

By Bruce Wilcox

July 25, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

Well BobG I live in the area you painted with that wide brush of yours and I take a great deal of pride in my home as do my neighbors in theirs. And to me your excuse of not mentioning me by name is a poor cop-out.

I gave you the major problems we face, ten people jammed into a single family houses, add to that absentee landlords, but at least the lawn will be mowed even if there are eight cars in the driveway due to Broken Windows.

Until these commissioners start putting some ordinances in to address the problems like Cobb has, people like you will keep the atitude.

I’m off for awhile, have to throw a couple of more tires out front.

By Woody Bass

July 25, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

I never… ever said that he was solely responsible. That would be a mistake…. I basically said… as this districts commissioner he could have been more involved. He could (and should) be that “ra-ra” person that he says he doesnt want to be. He should on the front line of this change. Were the commissioners before him as responsible… yes… but he has been in office 6 years now… what progress has been made before the Gwinnett Village came along?

As for Lorraine Greene, she has been to board meetings, as has Bannister. The fact is little of GV (if any) is now in her district… and most (if not all) IS in Nasuti’s district… and he’s nearly been absent since its foundation and only been reactive and not as pro-active as he needs to be.

He has time to change my mind (or prove me wrong) though. I will follow up on this and keep track of things he’s done… and I will be happy to point out progress he’s been a large part of. Trust me.. he knows how to get that information to me should he choose to. I have nothing against Nasuti personally… I have no reason to. But there are many people who have become very aggravated with Nasuti the last few years especially. There are alot of impatient people out there that whenever they see me out and about they constantly ask me “when are we going to start seeing something happen”… I constantly tell them that its going to take time. But I do not believe that The Village is a high priority for Nasuti as it has taken a back seat to this baseball mess. My concern is he could be doing alot more to speed the process up, and his lack of presence and participation is not helping matters.

By Woody Bass

July 25, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

Bruce: Call the Gwinnett Village with those violations and they can have the QOL unit (or you can report it to them directly) investigate as I beleive there is already a similar county ordinance in place .. that just needs to be enforced.

By Bruce Wilcox

July 25, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

“Every bedroom occupied by one (1) occupant must contain at least 70 square feet and bedrooms occupied by more than one occupant must contain at least 50 square feet per person.” Woody this is the code, when you do the math that isn’t much of a code. I did not see anything about a number of unrelated people to a house.

As long as cars and trucks are parked on a hard surface and do not take up more than 35% of the “Front” yard it’s cool.

There is a very serious safety issue here, when a firefighter enters a building in certain sections of Gwinnett he/she will have no idea of how many people will be living there, add to it the fact that many of these single family houses have been cut up into bedrooms, including garages. Not only is it dangerous for residents it puts our firefighters at increased risk.

I do call when it is needed, my neighborhood is still holding it’s own.

By Bruce Wilcox

July 25, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this

The new Cobb code…”Under that guideline no more than four adults could live in a 1,600 square foot home, for example, without getting county permission.

The updated law also limits cars regularly parked at a home, using the same 390-square-foot measure for each car visible from the street.

The law allows up to six adults, including two who are not related, to live in a home, provided the home is large enough. The law defines family as adults and their children or grandchildren.

It changes the square footage required for a person in a home from a 50-foot “sleeping space” to 390 feet of “total square footage.”

By Chuck

July 25, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this

Ahhh, Bob, Bruce and Michael - which one is playing Moe today?

By Bruce Wilcox

July 25, 2007 7:28 PM | Link to this

Well Chuck we all know who the Stooge is and thanks for your insight on the issues being discussed.

By Michael H. Smith

July 26, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

• Do not use SSNVS before hiring an employee.

• While the service is available to all employers and third-party submitters, it can only be used to verify current or former employees and only for wage reporting (Form W-2) purposes.

• Social Security will review usage of SSNVS to ensure that employers are using it for the proper purposes.

• Do not use SSNVS to take punitive action against an employee whose name and Social Security number do not match Social Security’s records.

• A mismatch does not imply that the employer or the employee intentionally provided incorrect information.

• A mismatch does not make any statement about an employee’s immigration status and is not a basis, in and of itself, for taking any adverse action against an employee. Doing so could subject you to anti-discrimination or labor law sanctions.

@ BobG

On Problem #2 from your link:

I’m don’t think I can agree with you on the argument there Bob. It may in fact be used, pardon the expression, as a smoke detector – “where there is smoke there is fire”.

When numbers don’t match up, it says something is wrong. Perhaps an honest mistake or someone’s blatant laziness is at fault. However, it could be a case malicious fraud to cover-up illegality or an unauthorized worker, illegal alien, that has committed a felony by using a SS number not legally issued to them for the purpose of obtaining gainful and illegal employment.

Using the SSNVS even as intended doesn’t preclude an employer or the county once either party becomes aware that mismatches have occurred from further investigating by other means what underlying wrong doing may have transpired.

Once an investigation turns-up proof positive of an unauthorized worker the “punitive action” can be taken relying solely on “the evidence the investigation” not SSNVS.

To go one step further looking at the above Social Security supplied information, it does not go so far as to say you “cannot” to take punitive action against an employee whose name and Social Security number do not match Social Security’s records. The warning: Doing so could subject you to anti-discrimination or labor law sanctions.

There is a very big difference in law between terms like “could” or “may”, to that of “shall”.

To conclude:

1) There is nothing to prohibit launching further investigations based on SSNVS information obtain through a normal and legal intended use of this verification process.

2) Though ify and risky SSNVS alone could be used to take punitive action against an employee where an employer feels confident enough or is willing to face the legal challenge.

3) However, Georgia is a right to work state, where employers have the right to terminate the employment of employees without rhyme or reason and no specific cause must be given. Employers may hire and fire at will.

PS. Bert sure seems to be back peddling to me, according to the statements attributed to him as they appeared in other AJC articles.

By BobG

July 26, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Mike, for a studied and obvious thoughtful response. That’s what can make a column like this very useful.

The BoC is reviewing the ordinance with a commitment to correcting the deficiencies. I understand that Comm. Nasuti, an attorney, will be more closely involved this time. He isn’t back-pedaling; he hasn’t withdrawn his support. But he apparently recognizes the problems and will work to resolve them so that the ordinance can be effective.

One of the problems with requiring employers to use the SSNVS is the stated purpose of the ordinance: ...verification of the social security numbers of all employees who will perform work on the County contract to ensure that no unauthorized aliens will be employed.

You can’t use the SSNVS for that purpose. However, the county could require its use (just like it requires the use of Basic Pilot) with the stated purpose of both requirements to be “to promote fairness in the bidding process…” or something to that effect. Clarifying the intent will go a long way toward reaching the goal without drawing the lawsuits.

Finally let me say that, although I have criticized the ordinance, I cannot commend Commissioner Lorraine Green enough for leading the way on this. She has taken on some tough issues and offered real solutions when nobody else would.

By Michael H. Smith

July 27, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Thanks again for the timely response Bob. I suppose we read differently the Social Security’s restrictions that they published. “Do not use” and “cannot use” has a different meaning to me – and probably does in law as well. The restriction is implied based upon taking “punitive actions” based solely on using the information for an alternative purpose, even then it really does not go so far as to say or use the word prohibited or “cannot”:

• Do not use SSNVS to take punitive action against an employee whose name and Social Security number do not match Social Security’s records.

• A mismatch does not imply that the employer or the employee intentionally provided incorrect information.

• A mismatch does not make any statement about an employee’s immigration status and is not a basis, in and of itself, for taking any adverse action against an employee. Doing so could subject you to anti-discrimination or labor law sanctions.

The only problem I see in using SSNVS for the purpose you are objecting to is further clarified in the closing clause: Doing so “could” subject you to anti-discrimination or labor law sanctions.

Two points on that if I may: The word “could” is a good as “may” and it is definitely not shall. Meaning a possibility exists of having to face a discrimination law suit. Now, discrimination is easily claimed but it is not so easily proven in a court of law. That would be, if it “could” be proven in a court of law, the only penalty an employer or the county would be subject to.

So yes you can use SSNVS for purposes outside the indented, in my view: On launching further investigation to resolve the issue one way or the other, which I cannot see any legal violation occurring. In fact, to not clear-up such a matter might or “could” place an employer in legal jeopardy if they have an unauthorized worker on their payroll.

verification of the social security numbers of all employees who will perform work on the County contract to ensure that no unauthorized aliens will be employed.

I’m taking a liberty to include this link:

www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/IWRMaterial/Attorney/EmploymentVerificationSystems4-05.pdf

I think your argument hinges completely on the word “verification”, correct me if I’m wrong? Perhaps some legal ease cleaning up is necessary in wording of the ordnance, though, it really will not change the argument of this scenario:

If in the course of using SSNVS for its most strict intended purpose, “for recording and reporting earnings and taxes only” – not “verification” -, a discovery is made that the name and social security number of a person does not match, where then does the onus lay?

I’ll not bother going to the issue of “probable cause” I think you know that one better than me.

An employer would be foolish to ignore and probably legally wrong, as well in legal jeopardy, not to investigate any mismatches discovered through the normal and most strict intended use of the SSNVS program.

Well, we do totally agree on the objective of this ordnance, I’ll reserve further judgments on Mr. Nasuti for the moment and again join in your applause of Commissioner Green.

However, I do remain optimistic that at some point, if not via the county, then at the state level, either by amendments to current laws, or by the passage in law the allowable non-discriminatory hiring preference of U.S. citizens. Where it can, through tax reduction incentives or preferences given in bidding processes, to all vendors, contractors and sub-contractors the proverbial carrot, which would eliminate any advantage for hiring unauthorized workers (Illegal Aliens) and breaking the law. (This is my other way of legally skinning the same illegal cat)

PS. By the way, it was good to hear from Commissioner Green who did respond to my e-mail. Thank you Commissioner for your at large response to an out of district citizen, it will be well remembered when you run for the at large county chair-seat. I can only hope a candidate will run to fill the open 4th district commission seat that shares your vision and conservative-progressive agenda in moving the county forward.

By James

July 27, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

Woody- I could not agree with this piece more! I have been wondering for some time if anyone else out there felt the same way about Mr. Nasuti as I do. It’s nice to know I’m not alone.

I’ve tried emailing Mr. Nasuti, who is my district commissioner, but I’ve never once gotten a response. I don’t feel like he’s in touch with what people in the “wrong” side of his district want and he therefore just won’t take the time to respond to them. One time I emailed Ms. Green, who is not my commissioner, and she responded the very same day. I was impressed, very impressed. Something is wrong when my own commissioner won’t respond to my emails, but another commissioner does.