Does CLPE mean anything?

[twistedtruth]

I recently found out that a crime scene supervisor who is working his was up in the ranks of the FDIAI took the CLPE test at home with his friends. The proctor was not the regular person but his wife! Sounds fishy to me. This person is soon going to be making decisions for the FDIAI? The state chair tried having the person retake the test but the IAI board would not hear of it. So the person is now a CLPE and soon Pres of the FDIAI. Makes me want to quit the IAI, FDIAI and give up my CLPE. Appearently Morals dont count in any of these organizations.

I dont want names I would like to know why the IAI Latent Print board not do anything about this? Some input please?

[Steve Everist]

Is his wife a CLPE too? Just curious since we had an employee who was scheduled to take the test and the proctor was another examiner in our office. She was unable to be there at the time, so it was arranged for me to proctor the test. This was allowed since I am a CLPE.

[twistedtruth]

Steve no these CLPE's are in South Fla.. Yes the wife is a Clpe but please, middle of the week at their home, when the proctor was availble. I just dont think it makes the IAI nor the local CSI/LPE look professional. My agency is very close to them and now working with them makes me feel very uneasy. I bother me that the IAI did not retest them despite a long memo to them asking for that?

Honestly what would you do, how does it look to others in the field locally and the students he teaches at the Community College?

[Steve Everist]

Honestly what would you do, ...

As a CLPE, I would file a formal complaint to the International IAI Certification Board.

That would put the onus on them to investigate the allegation. If this is true there are several different people that they would want to contact including the person, the wife/proctor, the FDIAI Certification Chair, and the friends that that allegedly took the test with him.

I'm assuming that this is the initial certification test and not the re-certification test, as the re-certification test is not proctored.

If I'm not mistaken, the IAI Certification Board won't take any action unless there is a formal complaint to act upon. As of right now, it exists only in the form of a topic on an online forum, posted by an anonymous poster about an unnamed person. But with a quick check of the current FDIAI Board of Directors, it would be easy to assume who the unnamed person is.

[Gerald Clough]

It's an understandable reaction, but I think it's well to recognize that this sort of thing happens in any testing program. Not often, if the cadre is generally genuinely interested in maintaining the integrity of the program, but it happens. We likely do not know about most of the irregularities. But the fact that there are PhD's out there who attained their degrees through various kinds of wrongdoing doesn't diminish the value of the rank in general. When you ask, "Does the CLPE mean anything?", I think you have to actually answer that question without regard to this and similar suspicions. It means only that the person has passed an examination. A number of episodes in recent years makes it clear, even if anyone suspected otherwise, that certification is no assurance of proper and accurate examination. It didn't prompt a rush of CLPE's abandoning their certifications in shame. It's quite apparent in every field, especially those in which certification is or is required for licensure to practice. Nearly by definition, every bum physician was licensed. Likewise, every licensed plumber and electrician. And every failed bridge was designed by a licensed engineer. I don't know if anyone has a census of latent print examiners, but pretty clearly, CLPE's are in the minority. CLPE just means what it means. It's worthwhile, but it doesn't define latent print examination in the U.S. A complaint may be worthwhile. But remember that the most common outcome of valid complaints about this sort of thing overall is change in rules, not drastic action in a particular case. If a change in rules is needed, it's worth pointing out.

[Michele]

Gerald,

I agree that certification (if any field) doesn't guarantee perfection but I can't agree that this type of thing happens in any testing program. I can't think of any field that would allow a family member to proctor an exam. To tell the truth, I can’t think of anyone with any degree of professionalism or integrity that wouldn’t decline such a proposal just to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest or the perception of any improper behavior.

I haven't seen any formal studies, but I'd guess that improprieties happen more frequently in professions that regulate themselves and have no external oversight committee.

[jlazz]

As a member of the Florida Latent Print Certiciacation Board this issue was disscussed with members of the Board, at the time certain members of the board did not know the relationship of the indivduals involed in the testing process. The IAI certifcation Secretary at the time gave her approval for the certified examiner to give the test, not also knowing the relationship of the individuals involed in this issue. When the Florida certification board discovered the issue in question it fowarded all of the information to the IAI certification board about the issue on this testing procedure. It is my understanding that the IAI certifcation board found no wrong doing on this issue.
This issue has been followed up properly by the FDIA by fowarding all of the information to the IAI certification board.
If the person who started up this issue on this chat board wants to make a formal complaint to the IAI he has that right to do so.
It is also funny how when this person in question moves up the ranks of the FDIAI that this issue has been brought up from the past. This person has been involved many years with the FDIAI and the IAI training conferences, many times on his own time!!!

This person should also use their name and not hide behind a user name!!!!

John P. Lazzaretto

[Gerald Clough]

Thank you. I think that's pretty much what folks here figured. A look at the FDIAI web site made it quite apparent that this was old news. I personally have no problem with anonymous posting, when someone feels they can discuss things more openly without associating their agency or is in a position where they can't play with ideas productively in the group without having to explain them in court. But anonymously posting under an avatar created just for one topic a "won't name names" account while making sure anyone with an interest can readily identify the principals is outside the pale. Strictly my own opinion, but if I think someone did wrong and can back it up, I'll deal with it in whatever public or private venue is appropriate under my own name, and if I can't do that, I'll keep still and leave it to those who can. 'Nuff said.

(Besides, we don't have time, being fully occupied with the spectacle of another dead horse being beaten into a grease spot.)