Yes yes I know “ In the name of public safety”

That mantra has been repeated over and over.

It’s a lie.
We must rely on facts now more than ever. Read the statistics from doctors lawyers therapist and educators. Read everything on the subject. I want everyone to fill a vocation. Working is good.

Hi Ms. Vianello,

I just wanted to thank you for engaging with FAC and it’s members. I certainly understand your concerns and appreciate your input. I think our frustration, particularly in states like Florida, is that people on the registry are all painted with the same brush. Just being on the list makes everyone a violent repeat child molester in the eyes of the public. Too many times, have we seen public outrage push people on the registry away from the very things that will ensure there is less recidivism. Recidivism is already very low for those on the registry, imagine how much lower and much more beneficial for society it would be if there weren’t barriers to jobs, housing, and social interaction? This particular individual notwithstanding, I hope that you will be able to learn more about the truth of this registry scheme and how terribly misguided and wasteful it is.

Ms Vianello,

I hear what you are saying, but just to make sure I understand correctly; are you suggesting that if he were a Tier 1/Level 1/Low Risk you would be OK with him having the job? I don’t want to assume that without confirming. If, at minimum, you agree that some people on the registry could be suitable for this position – just not this guy – then at least we’re making headway in that, as a general concept, you agree that there should be some opportunities for some people on the registry. Getting a job at Amazon or in most large corporations is not likely for someone with this label. In most cases, you only find work through someone that knows you. I get the nepotism and relationship with the Supervisor’s secretary was an issue for you, but the reality is knowing someone is probably the only way this guy is going to get a job anywhere.

You’re very upset about this particular guy and it might be with good cause. I don’t know him. He might be a total maniac. But what I’m challenging you on are some general perceptions. I’m also sharing some statistics so we can look at this issue a bit more objectively. 95% of sexual offenses are committed by someone not on the registry. 93% of sexual abuse victims know their abuser. 34% are abused by a family member. 59% are abused by someone the family knows and trusts (e.g., friends, babysitters, neighbors, coaches, clergy). These are government stats, not my own. When we look at the statistical likelihood of a child being sexually abused, the chances are that it’s not going to be a random guy on a list, but a coach, camp counselor, uncle, or even a friend. Sadly, the registry has been around for more than thirty years and kids are still getting molested, so something isn’t working right and maybe the solutions people are using (registration, exclusion, residency and proximity ordinances, social ostracism, etc) are not working, but there might be better ideas out there. Look into “Restorative Justice”, or “COSA – Circles of Support and Accountability”. Both programs seem to have success.

Or maybe – if it’s this particular guy who you’re focusing on – the community can find some way to support his reentry and rehabilitation so that he has an opportunity to do better. Not because they like the guy, but because they want him to not reoffend. So rather than saying F-this guy, let him rot in hell, maybe Woodstock can find a better position for him that will satisfy everyone, instead of just kicking him to the curb?

Furthermore he doesn’t live in my Community he lives an hour away! I suggested he get a job and an Amazon warehouse packing goods, away from children and not working in a maintenance department near children!

Let’s correct the misinformation:

People keep repeating that “94% of sex offenders don’t reoffend,” but that statistic doesn’t apply to Level 3 offenders.

Level 3 sex offenders are classified as high-risk because:
• They’ve often committed multiple or violent offenses.
• Risk assessments show they are much more likely to reoffend than lower-level offenders.
• The Level 3 label is assigned to protect the public—especially children—not to shame someone who’s “done their time.”

So when someone uses the 94% stat to defend a repeat predator, they’re misusing the data—and putting our community at risk.

This isn’t about being unforgiving. It’s about being realistic with the facts and putting safety over sympathy.

Ms Vianello,
I can appreciate your position. Our support of Mr. McKenna and the position he took is not intended to take away from the victim impact or condone the individual’s actions. We are both on the same page that sexual violence is unacceptable and the perpetrators deserve punishment. Where our opinions differ is on how former offenders should be managed once they are released from confinement and back into our communities.
The reality is; according to research from the Office of Justice Programs, 94% of persons convicted of a sexual offense WILL NOT reoffend. The recidivism rate is much, much lower than what the public perceives it to be. Additionally, most registrants, if re-arrested, are arrested for a non-sexual offense, such as a benign registration violation. The likelihood of this individual repeating his crime would be very low. There is a far greater likelihood of an employee NOT on the registry committing an offense, than someone already on the registry.
Another reality is; housing, stable employment and community support are the tools needed to prevent recidivism. By firing and ostracizing this man, the town destabilized him and inadvertently increased his likelihood of reoffending. Given the fact that he will, presumably, continue to live in your community, that’s a result nobody wants. Also, if he’s not suitable to be a maintenance man, what job do you suggest he do?
We can’t speak to the relationship he had with the supervisor’s secretary or nepotism. If that was the concern, it certainly wasn’t what was relayed in the articles and it’s not the point of our post. We know how difficult it is for someone with this label to get employment. We see how often people get fired from jobs, not because of their job performance, but because of a past misdeed from which they are trying to do better. We also see how often, when confronted with an unpopular issue, a politician will turn around and blame the registrant to deflect the heat. Supervisor McKenna didn’t do that.
Nobody should be forever defined by the worst thing they ever did. Similarly, no victim should be forever defined by the worst thing that ever happened to them. If we want safer communities we need successful reentry. That includes stable housing, employment opportunities and positive social relationships. If a town cannot foster that success and set a positive example for its citizens, it’s actually making the community less safe.

This individual is now being framed by some in our community—and reportedly by your organization—as someone deserving of a “second chance,” with public officials referencing FAC as a reason to ignore community outrage and even a board vote for his removal.

To be clear: this is not a case of a low-level offender seeking housing or reentry. This is a high-risk, violent individual whose employment was facilitated by a personal relationship with the town supervisor’s secretary, and who now works in a public role, funded by taxpayer dollars.

Your organization’s mission to reform outdated or unconstitutional registry policies is important, but I hope you can appreciate how harmful it is when FAC’s name is invoked to justify the continued employment of a dangerous predator—especially against the will of the community and town board.

If FAC has publicly supported this case or this supervisor, I respectfully ask that you clarify or reconsider that position, and distinguish between reform advocacy and defending individuals who pose a continued risk to the public.

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your response

Bill McKenna hired a level 3 sex offender this individual videotaped himself violently raping an unconscious woman, and they also had five images of an 11 year old in sexually violent graphic images. They believe there are MORE VICTIMS. Read the charge! This is not ok! He is not a hero is doing a favor! Nepotism! The convicted rapist is dating the supervisors secretary!