Untie job application, school questionnaire
I submit this commentary for the purpose of offering a “heads-up.”
At one time, when unemployed, it was common practice to visit a potential employer to complete a paper employment application. That was then.
Enter the brave new world of the cyber age, where such applications are completed online.
It all seems so simple, on the surface, until you look closer. Currently I am seeking employment, and like so many others, I have been doing so online, which is how I discovered “it.” “It” being the tie-in.
This tie-in shows up somewhere around the end of the application process and has been a part of every application.
What happens is that following the last job-related question, a series of college-related questions and statements designed to spark an interest in certain online schools are posed.
To this you probably say, “What’s the problem?” If you’re not interested, either leave them blank or state that you are not interested. Easier said than done. If you leave them blank or respond in the negative, the whole process locks up.
The only way out at this point is to express an interest in an online school. This is why I submitted this letter, to underscore the need to separate, to divide this protocol into two: (A) employment application and, (B) the college/school questionnaire. Keep the two separate. Do not combine them.
County gives in for wind farm money
The Kokomo Tribune reported that the Howard County Commissioners approved the amended Economic Development Agreement (EDA) with E.ON at their Sept. 3 meeting. Two critical facts were subverted in the Kokomo Tribune headline story, published on Wednesday, Sept. 4.
First, the Tribune story began by saying that “With no public comment, the Howard County Commissioners approved ... a revised economic development agreement …” The critical fact here is that the Howard County Commissioners did not allow public comment (even though it was requested by three people at the meeting) before the commissioners voted to approve this EDA. This alteration of this event is disappointing in that it implies the public at the meeting had no objections to the amended EDA. This was definitely not the case by the clear majority present at this commissioners meeting.