---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Cleveland Bafford <clevelandjbafford@gmail.

com>
Date: Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:27 PM
Subject: Healthy Debate: To every con there is a pro.
To: activeears@theear.org
Hi Ears,
There has been some discussion about the validity of my legitimacy as an eligible staff member
at the EAR. I am not surprised that this issue has come up. The reason that I am not surprised is
because I had similar concerns about the sensitive nature of my criminal background and how it
might be perceived by outsiders/insiders alike. This is why I thought it was the ethical thing to
do to at least let one member of the board/staff member know about my background before
training ever got started. I was assured that the EAR did not discriminate nor was it judgmental,
that in fact, it accepted people based on who they are now and not what they had done in the
past. Of course, my first reaction was one of great relief. "Finally," I said to myself, someone
has gotten it right. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the individuals who told me that about
the EAR was speaking truthfully about how they felt as persons - that the redemptive qualities of
human beings was a part of their moral barometer. It appears that the entire body doesn't hold
those same sentiments. My initial reaction was to resign immediately, but I was encouraged not
to make a decision in haste. So I reconsidered.
As I pondered this issue over the past week, I thought it would provide an unique opportunity for
a healthy debate amongst the EAR internally. Obviously, the EAR has been running it's policy a
certain way for decades and now in this modern technological age it finds itself at a
crossroads. Do we continue the norm or do we make a paradigm shift from business as usual.
I was particularly struck by some of the nice things one of the decenters said about my character,
only to dismiss them on the side of how the EAR sponsors might perceive my past, not in
relations to my present. Nice, friendly, not terrible, and has shown self-improvement are all
character traits that most people aspire to become, whether they took the wrong path to get there
or the right path. I would like to argue my case before a panel of sponsors to hear for myself
what they think. Where is the forum for redress on my behalf. When did we go from a nation
that believed in redemption, to one that believes in sustained condemnation. To reduce an
individual to the margins of life, to deny the individual participation in civic responsibility is
akin to exiling an individual from the membership of CITIZENTRY.
I am a firm believer in doing things for the greater good of an entity and if it is in the best interest
of the EAR that I resign, than I would do so with honor. Like I have mentioned to some of my
fellow Ears already, I'm an EAR for life. You can't go through that training and not be
profoundly impacted for life. The EAR experience is priceless and the services it provides the
community is priceless as well.
I just thought that I would take some of the mystery out of the discussion and put a face on the
argument of debate. I definitely want to hear back from some of my fellow Ears. Your opinions

truly matter to me. Weigh in on the discussion, because ultimately your decisions will sway the
debate one way or the other, thus becoming outcome determinant. Hope to hear soon!
One Love
Cleveland J. Bafford, Jr.