An employee at the University of Texas at Austin, identified as Nicholas Clisby, was taken into custody for not complying with sex offender registration laws in Texas. Documents show that Clisby, who worked in human resources within the McCombs School of Business, had been employed by the university since June 2023. His previous conviction in Oregon for a sex-related offense did not surface during UT's standard employee background check. According to KVUE, Clisby was arrested on September 6 after an anonymous tip to the University of Texas Police Department (UTPD).
UTPD's investigation revealed that Clisby had been living and working in Austin while still reporting to the Portland Police Department's Sex Offender Registration Unit. As reported by the Austin American-Statesman, Clisby informed the Portland detective during his last check-in on August 9 of his residency and employment in Oregon, concealing his actual location and occupation in Texas. Furthermore, Clisby was operating under a falsified name on the University of Texas campus, a fact that came to light through the course of UTPD's inquiry.
After his arrest, a UT spokesperson confirmed to KVUE on September 11 that Clisby had been terminated from his position upon discovery of his status as a sex offender and his failure to register. The dissonance between what is mandated by law and the actions of the individual in question poses serious concerns about the effectiveness of background checks, especially in cases involving out-of-state offenses.
It appears that Clisby's sex offender status, classified as Level II in Oregon, was not detected by UT's background check due to Oregon’s confidentiality laws. Kyle Kennedy, a spokesman for Oregon State Police, communicated to the Austin American-Statesman that the information regarding Level II offenders is limited to sharing with immediate residential neighbors and various local institutions, excluding the general public. Clisby is set to face the allegations in court on October 24. He has responded to inquiries by denying any knowledge that he violated the law by not registering in Texas, a claim that stands in stark contrast to the responsibilities placed upon individuals with his conviction history.
