From femme2 at scn.org Fri Oct 1 18:45:13 1999 From: femme2 at scn.org (Lorraine Pozzi) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 18:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: New repressive Seattle noise ordinance: Rally this Mon., 10/4 (fwd) Message-ID: I'm forwarding this on. I find it hard to believe that the City Council could adopt this. What happened to free speech? Right of assembly? Unless the facts are grossly mis-stated, this is a gross violation of basic democratic rights. Obviously, it would have a chilling effect on anyone who could not easily spare a few hundred dollars for a fine based on quite arbitrary interpretations of excessive "noise." I know, I should have called and checked this out before posting to the list... Lorraine femme2 at scn.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 13:39:18 EDT From: SsarahT at aol.com To: wto-host at lists.citizen.org, fair-trade at scn.org Subject: New repressive Seattle noise ordinance: Rally this Mon., 10/4 Hi, Everyone should be altered to a repressive new noise ordinance that looks like it will soon be adopted by the Seattle City Council. There will be a protest rally this Monday, 10/4/99, at 5pm at 5th & James to protest. KL Shannon and Sally Soriano (I think) will be among the speakers. The rally is being sponsored by Sea-4C (Seattle- Citizens for Culture, Creativity, and Community). It is endorsed by the Seattle Progressive Coalition and Free Speech Seattle. Here are some of the worst parts of the proposed new noise ordinance: - Subjectivity. The new ordinance includes a "plainly audible" standard (rather than set decibil levels) in the public nuisance section, which also provides that an unamplified human voice can violate the ordinance; - Discretion to the police. Police would not be required to give a warning prior to arrest or citiation (unlike the current practice); and - Incredibly harsh penalities. The Committee recommendation is: $250 for the first offense, $500 for the second offense, and $1000 and jail time for the third offense. Note that the the first and second offenses, for example, can incur in the same evening. It should be noted that organized labor pushed hard to ensure that rallies of all kinds would be exempt from the noise ordinance. This amendment was adopted in a 2-1 vote in the Public Safety Committee (with Margaret Pagler opposing). Construction noise and airplane noise are also exempt. With our big WTO protests coming up, people may get cited and/or arrested despite being part of rally. We might be on the periphery of the rally and be told, for example, that �you can argue the rally defense in court. In the meantime, here�s your ticket for $250 or $500 or maybe even $1,000� with an arrest. Youth of color, exuberant party goers, people who live on the street and others may be particularly vulnerable. The City Council is expected to vote on the ordinance on Monday, 10/11/99. Please call the City Council (206-684-888) or e-mail Council members (addresses below) to urge them to vote �No� on the new noise ordinance (Council Bill 112728). A somewhat similar Detroit noise ordinance was overturned earlier this year through the work of the ACLU. For more info on the noise ordinance, contact Rick Hangartner, h-206-405-4239. For more info on the rally, contact Ralph Warren of Sea-4C, vm-206-366-2149, snhip-no at speakeasy.org. -- cheers & solidarity, Sarah Luthens ___ SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL'S & MAYOR'S E-MAIL ADDRESSES jan.drago at ci.seattle.wa.us, martha.choe at ci.seattle.wa.us, richard.conlin at ci.seattle.wa.us, sue.donaldson at ci.seattle.wa.us, nick.licata at ci.seattle.wa.us richard.mciver at ci.seatte.wa.us, margaret.paegler at ci.seattle.wa.us, tina.podlodowski at ci.seattle.wa.us, peter.steinbrueck at ci.seattle.wa.us, paul.schell at ci.seattle.wa.us * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bb615 at scn.org Fri Oct 1 20:16:53 1999 From: bb615 at scn.org (Rod Clark) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:16:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Computer giveaway (486s) Sat Oct 9, 1-4 PM Message-ID: Forwarded from the Services list: ----- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 21:40:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Rich Littleton Subject: Here 'tis (fwd) I am forwarding an invitation from Ti Locke who runs the computer giveaway program. She wants SCN(A) people to know about a hardware and software giveaway. (See below.) BTW, Hardware, the level of equipment in this giveaway relates to a recent discussion about what equipment SCN users (current and potential) have. - Rich L. ______________________________________________________________________ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 07:53:11 -0700 From: "Locke, Ti" To: 'Rich Littleton' Subject: Here 'tis The NEXT Mass Giveaway O'Stuff Saturday, Octber 9, 1:00-4:00 PM Monitors (typically 4-5 years old), keyboards, bits and pieces of CPU's, older CPU's (386's and early-generation 486's), some newer ones with an interesting variety of hardware problems (high-end 486's), old software, you name it. I have nothing newer than 486s. Bring your own tools. (Newbies should bring a computer-savvy friend.) Sorry, no Mac stuff is left (save for a monitor and a couple of old mice). Tho' I never know what's lurking in obscure boxes. Email me directly for the esoterica below: (1) a complete bbs setup circa 1995 (card, software, manuals); (2) a complete printer LAN circa 1995 (6 RJ45's, hub, cables, cords and misc); (3) the cabling, but no other part, of a VAX system. Location: CAMP/ROPE Warehouse 2615 S. Jackson (corner MLK Way and Jackson in the Central District) Contact: Ti Locke, 206/443-4860, tlocke at kcts.org Additional hardware for Ti Locke's (CAMP/ROPE) giveaway. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I have inherited a complete SGI (India) graphics server. State o'the art, circa 1995-96--it's fine, it's running, I have entrance password and when you turn it on all the lights in the area will dim. Missing the special mousepad, and one of the special mice but otherwise complete. The two (or is it three ?) BIG monitors and two HEAVY (but not big) cases will require a van and a couple of strong backs to move. If you're wondering what the unit looks like, see http://www.sgi.com/products/remanufactured/ If you're wondering what the big brothers of this unit can do, take a look at http://www.sgi.com/products/remanufactured/products.html Email me if you're interested: tlocke at kcts.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From rockybay at scn.org Fri Oct 1 21:38:43 1999 From: rockybay at scn.org (Malcolm Taran) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 21:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: New repressive Seattle noise ordinance: Rally this Mon., 10/4 (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Are we referring to the same noise ordinance? I'd suggest talking to neighborhood associations as well as city Code and Land Use people. If you've ever lived near (or within a block) of a party Animal House in a residential neighborhood, or the seemingly hearing-impaired owner of an incessant dog, you may recall some sympathy for urban dwellers seeking relief within their own homes, much less their own yards. At a summer Ravenna Neighborhood Alliance meeting, a Code and Land Use technician described how the proposed noise ordinance contains valid, objective engineering in determining compliance (or non- compliance) before formal legal proceedings and citations, while leaving the cops discretion in advising people before resorting to the red tape. A laudable feature from the perspective of neighbors is that the actual noisemakers themselves would be liable, not just the property owner. Livable urban life can become a viable alternative to endless sprawl. "It's just apartment house sense... One man's ceiling is another man's floor" (Paul Simon). Malcolm Taran * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sun Oct 3 01:36:52 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 01:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Geometry problem. Message-ID: Solution needed. If I have a styrofoam ball one foot in diameter, how can I find the precise location of the opposing poles? Thanks. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Sun Oct 3 11:44:44 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Geometry problem. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Practical solution. Put it into a box. the size of your ball measure up 1/2 the height of the ball and mark the corner at that height do the same on the kitty(or catty if it's an older box) corner drill a hole the size of your marker Insert ball and mark No math, just geometery...pure and simple. Janos Ps no box put a nail in a peice of plywood hang a nail on a string (through an eye) so the points touch. (adjust the plywood) to the hanging nail pull up the hanging nail above one foot stick the ball on the lower nail lower the upper nail to the ball. mark top lower is marked by nail hole. On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Rich Littleton wrote : > > Solution needed. > > If I have a styrofoam ball one foot in diameter, how can I find the > precise location of the opposing poles? > > Thanks. > > Rich > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sun Oct 3 22:29:07 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 22:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Geometry problem. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Brilliant. This plywood method works regardless of my ability to measure the size of the ball. Thanks to all who replied. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > > > Practical solution. > > Put it into a box. the size of your ball > > measure up 1/2 the height of the ball and mark the corner at that height > > do the same on the kitty(or catty if it's an older box) corner > > drill a hole the size of your marker > > Insert ball and mark > > No math, just geometery...pure and simple. > > Janos > > Ps > no box > put a nail in a peice of plywood > > hang a nail on a string (through an eye) so the points touch. (adjust the > plywood) to the hanging nail > > pull up the hanging nail above one foot > > stick the ball on the lower nail > lower the upper nail to the ball. mark top > lower is marked by nail hole. > > > > > > On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Rich Littleton wrote > : > > > > > Solution needed. > > > > If I have a styrofoam ball one foot in diameter, how can I find the > > precise location of the opposing poles? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Rich > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe scn > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From melissa at GroupWorks.org Mon Oct 4 01:50:38 1999 From: melissa at GroupWorks.org (Melissa Guest) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 04:50:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SCNA Meetings Open Message-ID: [this is in response to an earlier thread, suggesting that SCNA's Board & Coordinators are intentionally not allowing others to know what work is going on and what policies are being drafted.] this is from the current MOTD: "September 29 1999 ---- MESSAGE OF THE DAY ---- Wednesday 3:00 PM ... * Upcoming SCNA meetings: Excomm - Oct 7, 7pm - Broadview Library. Board - Oct 13, 7pm - Columbia Library. Observers welcome to both. Next General Meeting - 7:00pm, Wednesday, Oct 27, 7pm - Everyone welcome University Branch Library, 5009 Roosevelt Way NE. Learn more about SCN! ..." The intention for the three monthly meetings goes like this: - The Excomm meeting is the meeting of the different operational teams to coordinate with each other, and report on current status, priorites and needs. - The Board meeting (a week following) focuses on less operational, more policy/long-range planning issues, and issues in supporting the work of Excomm teams. Anyone is welcome to attend and observe the board or excomm meeting now, and there is usually time at the end of the agenda for observer comments and questions. Observers do not participate in those two meetings mainly because they are time-constrained, and it is often difficult to finish covering everything on the agenda even with just the regular participants. There are also very often after-meeting informal discussions that include anyone attending. - The general meeting is intended to be the place where anyone (user, member, someone from outside) can come talk with board members (at least) about what's going on and ask for help if needed (technical or otherwise). Anyone at all interested in the goings on in SCN who is unsatisfied with the info they're getting on maillists and the web can go to whichever of these meetings they're most interested in and find out more. And if anyone can't make the meetings and wants more details, they are welcome to contact us: 425 653 7353 or guests at scn.org and we will answer questions as best we can (and/or find the appropriate other people to talk to). If not us, try calling (206) 365-4528 or emailing help at scn.org for more info on anything, and our helpdesk volutneers will try to answer your questions as best they can. If anyone would be interested in volunteering to help improve the communications amongst the teams/management/membership/volunteers/user base and public, pleeeeease email me at guests at scn.org - we have several volunteer tasks you could help with that would improve the flow of information to all. Thanks, Mel -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- Melissa & Steve Guest (425) 653 7353 VPs & Mega-Volunteers 8am to 11pm PST Seattle Community Network http://www.scn.org "Supporting People and Communities with Free Internet Services" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Mon Oct 4 08:48:14 1999 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Geeks... Message-ID: <199910041548.IAA26997@scn.org> FYI... >From: Phil Agre >To: "Red Rock Eater News Service" >Subject: [RRE]geeks >Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:39:58 -0700 (PDT) > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). >Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. >You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use >the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions >for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html >or send a message to requests at lists.gseis.ucla.edu with Subject: info rre >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > >Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:40:47 -0500 >From: Gary Chapman >To: chapman at lists.cc.utexas.edu >Subject: L.A. Times column, 9/27/99 > >Friends, > >Below is my Los Angeles Times column for today, Monday, September 27, >1999. As always, please feel free to pass this on, but please retain >the copyright notice. > >This is likely to be a controversial column, and possibly disturbing >and even offensive to some computer professionals. My original draft >of the column had more than 350 additional words than the version >that was published this morning, and I tried, in my first draft, to >"soften" the link between computer professionals and the stereotype >of the "geek" and "nerd." I've also risked offending parents of young >people with autism. In any case, a sensitive but, in my opinion, >fascinating subject. > >Carol and I are doing well, settled into our routine of work and >social life here in Austin. We're hoping that it will cool off and >that we'll have some rain soon -- we've gone about eight weeks >without any rain, and with high temperatures, and the vegetation >around here is really suffering. Global warming, I suppose. . . . > >Best wishes to everyone. > >-- Gary > >gary.chapman at mail.utexas.edu > >------------------------------------------ > >If you have received this from me, Gary Chapman >(gary.chapman at mail.utexas.edu), you are subscribed to the listserv >that sends out copies of my column in The Los Angeles Times and other >published articles. > >If you wish to UNSUBSCRIBE from this listserv, send mail to >listproc at lists.cc.utexas.edu, leave the subject line blank, and put >"Unsubscribe Chapman" in the first line of the message. > >If you received this message from a source other than me and would >like to subscribe to the listserv, the instructions for subscribing >are at the end of the message. > >DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE -- the listserv is set up to reject >replies to the sending address. You must use the command address, >listproc at lists.cc.utexas.edu, to either subscribe or unsubscribe, or >use the address gary.chapman at mail.utexas.edu to send back comments. > >------------------------------------------ > >Monday, September 27, 1999 > >DIGITAL NATION > >Even if "Geekness" Is a Disorder, There's No Rush to Find a Cure > >By Gary Chapman > >Copyright 1999, The Los Angeles Times, All Rights Reserved > >To the surprise of many people, and the dismay of some computer >professionals, the formerly derogatory labels "geek" and "nerd" are >now being used with pride -- or at least resignation -- by a growing >number of young computer experts. > >What makes a computer geek? > >There is some fascinating speculation going on these days that the >well-known stereotype of the computer geek or nerd may actually be a >description of mild autism, especially a form of autism known as >Asperger's syndrome. > >Unlike classic autism, which often involves mental retardation and a >lack of verbal skills, Asperger's syndrome is at the "high >functional" end of the spectrum of autistic behavior, experts say. > >People with Asperger's syndrome have normal or above-average IQs and >may even display savantism, or exceptional abilities in a specific >skill. What they lack is human empathy, a deficiency sometimes called >"mind-blindness," which shows up as a distinct inability to read >routine human nonverbal cues of attitude such as kindness, anger or >love. > >Asperger's syndrome patients, who usually develop their traits at a >young age, often have these tendencies: excellent rote memory; >fascination with fantasy worlds and arcane facts; facility with math >and science; physical awkwardness or clumsiness and sometimes an >unusual gait; hyperactivity but with an ability to focus on >interesting problems for hours at a time; poor social understanding; >hyper-verbal activity but without the ability to make contextual >connections in conversations; and an appearance of insensitivity and >eccentricity. They are commonly victims of teasing in school. > >And, apparently, some can do well in the computer world. > >Indeed, some people claim that a paradigmatic case of Asperger's >syndrome is displayed by Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft Corp. and >the richest person on earth. > >They say that Gates is famously negligent about his personal >appearance and schedule and that he has the autistic behavior of >compulsively rocking in his chair, which reportedly began early in >his childhood. They say he has temper tantrums and is abrupt and >abusive to his employees. He is also regarded as one of the smartest >people in American industry. > >It's important to note that success and skill with computers do not >depend on any mental condition such as Asperger's syndrome, if there >is a connection at all. It appears that some people who may have a >mild form of this syndrome may simply find computers and computer >culture more comfortable than other professions. > >An autistic woman who has a successful career in programming told >ComputerWorld magazine that when she's programming, "my code just >flies," and she can accomplish more in four hours than other people >can in two or three days. This is a widely known phenomenon in the >programming field -- such productive people are sometimes known as >"super-programmers" and are highly valued by employers. Few are >clinically autistic. > >Asperger's syndrome was first described in 1944 by the Viennese >psychiatric researcher and physician Hans Asperger, who called his >child patients "little professors" because of their interest in >arcane subjects and their advanced verbal skills. > >Not surprisingly, research published in German in 1944 was destined >to be ignored, so Asperger's work was not translated into English >until the 1970s, and it was only in 1994 that the syndrome became >part of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders >(DSM-IV), the bible of psychiatric diagnosis. > >There is still a great deal of controversy over what set of behaviors >the syndrome covers and its link to some computer and software >engineers. > >Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, professor of child psychiatry at Yale University >and one of the world's leading experts on autism, thinks that the >concept of a mild form of Asperger's is bunk. > >"The children we see with Asperger's syndrome are horribly, horribly >impaired," he said. He admits that there is a debate among >psychiatric experts over how far the boundaries of the syndrome >should extend. > >Diluting the definition of autism to cover personality traits may >divert resources away from severely autistic patients who desperately >need help, Volkmar said. > >"The dilemma right now is over what people mean by Asperger's >syndrome," he said. "We don't have enough data yet. It's likely that >in the next 10 or 20 years, we'll discover a great many new syndromes >that we don't understand well enough now. We do know that many people >with autistic-like behaviors can be highly functional and successful >in society." > >A common reaction to the entire Asperger's debate, among >self-professed computer geeks, is a big "So what?" > >They typically view non-geeks as relentless self-promoters, obsessed >with their own trivia such as fashion, style and money. > >The geeks of the world, they say, are moving society forward with new >technologies, new ideas and a fierce commitment to free-thinking >intelligence. The last thing we need, they say, is a "cure" for >geekness, whatever its source. > >Even if Thomas Edison had Asperger's syndrome, we need more Edisons >and not more pop stars, they argue. > >Maybe the geeks shall inherit the Earth. > >Gary Chapman is director of the 21st Century Project at the >University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at >gary.chapman at mail.utexas.edu. > >------------------------------------------ > >To subscribe to a listserv that forwards copies of Gary Chapman's >published articles, including his column "Digital Nation" in The Los >Angeles Times, send mail to: > > listproc at lists.cc.utexas.edu > >Leave the subject line blank. In the first line of the message, put: > > Subscribe Chapman [First name] [Last name] > >Leave out the brackets, just put your name after Chapman. > >Send this message. > >You'll get a confirmation message back confirming your subscription. >This message will contain some boilerplate text, generated by the >listserv software, about passwords, which you should IGNORE. >Passwords will not be used or required for this listserv. > >Mail volume on this listserv is low; expect to get something two or >three times a month. The list will be used only for forwarding >published versions of Gary Chapman's articles, or else pointers to >URLs for online versions of his articles -- nothing else will be sent >to the list. > >To unsubscribe from the listserv, follow the same instructions above, >except substitute the word "Unsubscribe" for "Subscribe." > >Please feel free to pass along copies of the forwarded articles, but >please retain the relevant copyright information. Also feel free to >pass along these instructions for subscribing to the listserv, to >anyone who might be interested in such material. > >Questions should be directed to Gary Chapman at >gary.chapman at mail.utexas.edu. > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bn890 at scn.org Mon Oct 4 13:39:19 1999 From: bn890 at scn.org (Irene Mogol) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Geometry problem. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Try hacking it precisely in half using my new meat cleaver! If that doesn't work, try winding some spaghetti around it, add some garlic and oil, and MANGIA! See ya! On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Rich Littleton wrote: > > Solution needed. > > If I have a styrofoam ball one foot in diameter, how can I find the > precise location of the opposing poles? > > Thanks. > > Rich > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Mon Oct 4 16:46:18 1999 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Cleveland Freenet eulogy Message-ID: <199910042346.QAA08106@scn.org> Here is an eulogy of the Cleveland Freenet... -- Doug Cleveland Freenet closed on October 1, 1999 Long Live Its Goal of Access to the Internet for ALL! by Ronda Hauben, (formerly au329 at cleveland.edu) ronda at ais.org Cleveland Freenet closed on October 1, 1999 The Cleveland Freenet was something very special in the history of the development of the Internet as it made access to the Internet avaialable to all in the community. It made access available to school children in Cleveland as I learned when I gave at talk at a conference in Cleveland in 1988. The teacher introducing me told me how her students loved being online and communicating with other students. It made access available in special new forms. Unsung pioneers like Dr. Bohl of the St. Silicon Sports Medicine Clinic on the Cleveland Freenet would respond to questions from users with sports medicine problems from the earliest days of St. Silicon Hospital till the closing of the Freenet on October 1, 1999. Dr. Bohl would post the questions sent to him as anonymous posts and would provide a helpful response that was available for all who looked in on the clinic newsgroup. One user had an experience where an injury that more than 20 doctors in the Detroit and Ann Arbor areas of Michigan were not able to diagnosis and treat was identified by Dr. Bohl. From the email the user wrote to him, he provided information about what the problem was likely to be, along with the proviso that this was general information not a particular diagnosis. Because of his online clinic it was possible to get the needed treatment to cure the injury, and then to even correspond with the doctor via email in an early use of email between patient and doctor. Also all who looked in on the online clinic newsgroup would be able to learn about the nature of sports medicine injuries and the varieties of their treatment from the helpful responses to individual questions posted on the newsgroup. The Freenet made an email mailbox available to each user so they could use and participate in email. Shortly after I signed onto the Cleveland Freenet I had the thrill of receiving a New Year's greeting from a friend in Australia. One of the most important aspects of Cleveland Freenet was when it provided a free and helpful means for its users to explore and to post to Usenet newsgroups. After a post on Freenet I was soon receiving email from numbers of people and also the posts generated interesting and sometimes prolonged discussion. It was only the fact that Cleveland Freenet provided totally free access that made it possible for me to participate in Usenet. And for years afterwards, Cleveland Freenet made it possible to have a connection to Usenet newsgroups. When the green card lawyers wrote their infamous book advising on how to spam the Net, they advised spammers to stay away from the Freenets, warning them of the acceptible use policy of the Freenets which required responsible use from its users. Sometime after I first got onto Cleveland Freenet, a U.S. government official from the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) posted requesting input on what users felt should be the role of the U.S. government in providing access to the Internet to citizens. Many people posted their responses. Several people responded that it was important that all have access, as citizens would be empowered by an ability to be online. Again in 1994 the U.S. government, this time via the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA), sponsored an online conference requesting input from users about their ideas on providing universal access to the Internet. On Cleveland Freenet this conference was carried as a local newsgroup making it easier to participate than in the mailing list form, as the volume of comments was very great. Learning from the experience of the Cleveland Freenet, Canadian Freenets were started. The Freenet movement in Canada soon became a grassroots movement to make access available to all Canadians. Also Freenets were set up in some in European countries, including Finland and Germany. The development of the Cleveland Freenet provided a model for how the U.S. government could encourage and support a low cost means of access to the Internet for all. The U.S. government has missed this opportunity and both the U.S. government and the people of the U.S. have lost something very important. The notion of a system of computer communications networks making email and Usenet access available to all has provided an inspiring and important goal. The global communications that the Internet makes possible and affordable is a very precious treasure and a signficant new development for our times. The Cleveland Freenet has provided a body of experience showing that such a goal is far from impossible. Those who recognize the importance of this goal need to redouble their efforts to make the vision of all having access to e-mail, Usenet newsgroups and a browser, a reality. A special thank you to all who contributed to make the experience of the Cleveland Freenet such an important one in the development of the Internet. # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Tue Oct 5 19:32:02 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCNA Meetings Open In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mel, who has worked very hard to boost SCNA, makes the point that information is flowing freely in the organization. She summarizes the board meetings, the excomm meetings, and the general meetings to explain. (I've left Mel's text below for reference.) However, it turns out that there are two failings with these meetings as communication methods. (1) There is no advance notice of what is going to happen at the meetings, so members can't know if the meeting will be worth their attending. (2) There is no input at the meetings (except at the general meeting where no decisions can be made). The bottom line is, a member finds out, NOT what is going on in SCNA, but what has been alread done to him/her in SCNA. Sometimes, this is what has been done FOR him/her, but this is all after-the-fact information. Information is certainly being withheld. The Ops committee, one of the best and most active of the committees, has taken up establishing a revised (more stingent) security policy. Unfortunately the committee has intentionally decided to NOT let the SCNA or SCN membership know about the existence of or the specifics of the policy and also intentionally decided to NOT get input and review from the SCNA or SCN membership. The committee has been urged repeatedly to open up this process but, for reasons of quick action, has directly and intentionally declined. Mel, you have directly stated that information is no being withheld, intentionally or not. I think you will be surprised. Could you contact Rhodes Hileman, the very capable coordinator of Ops, and get an update. Could you then send a letter on the SCN list, and any others on which this discussion has occurred, and tell us if this information will continue to be withheld before it is sent to excomm or to the board? Thanks. I encourage those reading this to write to the board (scna-board at scn.org) and ask for a copy of the security policy and ask that the discussion be opened. Members can be thrown out of the organization for violating some of the parts of the policy. Members should know about it BEFORE it is adopted. Mel's plea for volunteers to help with information distribution is good, and anyone wanting to do so, contact her. However, the board or excomm or Ops committee withholding the agendas of their respective meetings is not due to a lack of volunteer effort. It is simply the decisions to not do this. Each committee has to have an advance agenda to have a productive meeting, so it is a simple matter to post it days in advance of the meeting. Thanks, again, to Mel, for getting this discussion going on these lists. Later, Rich ______________________________________________________________________ On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Melissa Guest wrote: > [this is in response to an earlier thread, suggesting that SCNA's > Board & Coordinators are intentionally not allowing others to know > what work is going on and what policies are being drafted.] > > this is from the current MOTD: > > "September 29 1999 ---- MESSAGE OF THE DAY ---- > Wednesday 3:00 PM > ... > * Upcoming SCNA meetings: Excomm - Oct 7, 7pm - Broadview Library. > Board - Oct 13, 7pm - Columbia Library. Observers welcome to both. > Next General Meeting - 7:00pm, Wednesday, Oct 27, 7pm - Everyone > welcome University Branch Library, 5009 Roosevelt Way NE. Learn more > about SCN! > ..." > > The intention for the three monthly meetings goes like this: > - The Excomm meeting is the meeting of the different operational > teams to coordinate with each other, and report on current status, > priorites and needs. > - The Board meeting (a week following) focuses on less > operational, more policy/long-range planning issues, and issues in > supporting the work of Excomm teams. > > Anyone is welcome to attend and observe the board or excomm meeting > now, and there is usually time at the end of the agenda for observer > comments and questions. Observers do not participate in those two > meetings mainly because they are time-constrained, and it is often > difficult to finish covering everything on the agenda even with just > the regular participants. There are also very often after-meeting > informal discussions that include anyone attending. > > - The general meeting is intended to be the place where anyone (user, > member, someone from outside) can come talk with board members (at > least) about what's going on and ask for help if needed (technical or > otherwise). > > Anyone at all interested in the goings on in SCN who is unsatisfied > with the info they're getting on maillists and the web can go to > whichever of these meetings they're most interested in and find out > more. And if anyone can't make the meetings and wants more details, > they are welcome to contact us: 425 653 7353 or guests at scn.org and we > will answer questions as best we can (and/or find the appropriate > other people to talk to). If not us, try calling (206) 365-4528 or > emailing help at scn.org for more info on anything, and our helpdesk > volutneers will try to answer your questions as best they can. > > If anyone would be interested in volunteering to help improve the > communications amongst the teams/management/membership/volunteers/user > base and public, pleeeeease email me at guests at scn.org - we have > several volunteer tasks you could help with that would improve the > flow of information to all. > > Thanks, > Mel > > -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- > Melissa & Steve Guest (425) 653 7353 > VPs & Mega-Volunteers 8am to 11pm PST > Seattle Community Network http://www.scn.org > "Supporting People and Communities with Free Internet Services" > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Tue Oct 5 21:47:33 1999 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: jobs Message-ID: <199910060447.VAA17856@scn.org> FYI... > ---------- > From: Amy Carter[SMTP:Amy at gatesfoundation.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 3:49 PM > Subject: Position Announcement > > <> > > I am the Recruiting Manager at the Gates Center for Technology Access (and > an alumni of Evergreen!). GCTA is a Seattle-based resource of the Bill > and Melinda Gates Foundation and has immediate openings for Public Access > Computing Trainers. > > I was hoping that you could help me by posting the job, as I'm sure you > have many qualified candidates at Evergreen. Also, feel free to pass > the job description along to your school's listserv. I've attached a > copy of the job description to this message and have also pasted it > below. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact > me. For more information about GCTA and our current job opportunities, > please visit our website: www.gatesfoundation.org/GCTA. > > Thank you so much for your support! > > Sincerely, > > Amy Carter > <> > > __________________________ > > Amy Carter > > Recruiting Manager > > Gates Center for Technology Access > > 206.709.3457 > > __________________________ > > Public Access Computing Trainer > > Objectives > The Gates Center for Technology Access (GCTA), a Seattle-based non-profit > organization, is searching for highly motivated individuals to assist in > the implementation of nation-wide grant programs. These positions require > traveling to a variety of states, installing computers in libraries and > other community organizations that receive grants from the Bill and > Melinda Gates Foundation for the Gates Library Initiative (GLI), and > training librarians on sustaining public access computing systems. > > Duties will include > > * Teach instructional sessions on software, networking, and > troubleshooting to public library staff. > * Install networked and standalone machines running Windows NT in > public libraries and other community organizations. > * Provide technical field support for libraries. > * Assist local statewide meetings and workshops for public librarians. > * > > * Expectations > > * Ability to communicate with computer users of various skill levels. > * Earnest interest in implementing public access computing, and a > desire to work with public librarians, educators, and technical service > staff. > * Flexible and able to adapt to varying situations. > * Aptitude for working with dynamic technology and committed to > self-motivated learning. > * Willing to spend 2 of every 3 weeks training in the field. > * Comfortable with air travel and driving long distances. > * > > Training provided by GCTA > > * Windows NT operating system and software applications provided with > GCTA computers > * Cabling and networking > * User education and instruction > * Hardware familiarity and troubleshooting > > > Education and Experience > > * One year teaching/training experience. > * Degree in Library and Information Science, Education, or Computer > Science is preferred. > * Familiarity with Windows environment, software applications and > Internet, and troubleshooting. > > > Compensation > The salary is $36,000 annually, with an excellent benefits package, > including medical coverage and a generous 401k program. > > To Apply > Send cover letter, resume, and references to recruit at gatesfoundation.org > > For more information about GCTA and our current employment opportunities, > please visit our website: www.gatesfoundation.org/GCTA > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bb615 at scn.org Tue Oct 5 22:23:31 1999 From: bb615 at scn.org (Rod Clark) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 22:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Invitation to Webmasters meeting, Wed Oct 6 at 7:00 PM Message-ID: This has been announced in various places before, but here are some more recent details. ----- Webmasters and Topic Editors Meeting Wednesday, October 6, 7:00 - 9:00 PM U. Village QFC, upstairs meeting room at north end Everyone who's interested in the SCN Web site is welcome, including those who haven't been active lately. We hope to have a from-the-ground-up discussion. Afterward, we might be able to break up into working groups and continue to 10:00 PM in the meeting room, or move some of that to a coffee shop nearby. Anyway, we'll continue over the next few months with meetings of some smaller working groups of people interested in particular areas. Some of the purposes of this meeting are to 1. Get more people involved in the Web site. Figure out how people can hand off tasks to new volunteers and collaborate effectively with them. 2. Identify tasks within Webmasters that require different kinds of talents, and organize working groups around them. Do this in ways that can scale up as the site grows and more people become involved and the complexity of SCN's Web services increases. 3. Discuss what qualifications are needed for roles such as Community Pages topic editors. Figure out how people should be selected for those roles. Discuss how the results of their activites should be evaluated and by whom, so that volunteers can take on wider responsibilities or scale back their activities to what they can comfortable handle. 4. Agree on some realistic guidelines for the number of hours per week needed for tasks such as topic editing. Figure out ways that people can move in and out of active roles according to the time they currently have available. The Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org) has come up with some ways to do this with a similar but much larger volunteer project. Take a look and see what you think of how they organize their volunteer editors. 5. Toward the end of the meeting, initially hand out the tasks sketched out below (or however we try structuring the committee for a while) to some qualified people who have the time to devote to them and who are willing to get together with others who are interested in working on those areas. Especially do this with the Community Pages, to cover all of the topic sections if at all possible, instead of just some of them. 6. Continue refining whatever rough beginnings we have by the end of the meeting, through discussion on the Webmasters list and at meetings of various more specific task groups. Here are some notes on how we might organize some working groups within Webmasters. Please add your thoughts to this. Researchers - - Web researchers are SCN volunteers and members of the public who search for good local resources and submit them for inclusion in the SCN menus. Most of the time, most researchers would do this in one or more subject areas of particular interest to them. - Researchers also may be asked to do directed research about certain subjects, to better fill out areas identified by the webmaster and the topic editors. - No minimum time commitment is required to be a researcher. (You're all invited to go on a research binge, to help us update SCN's menus.) - Researchers, after producing some amount of good results, are eligible to become topic editors. Since that would mean a more consistent and greater time commitment, some researchers might be just as happy not to become editors. Topic Editors - - Editors are SCN volunteers with a generalist ability to evaluate and select content that supports SCN's purposes. Ideally at least one editor in each Community Pages subject area would have some current expert knowledge about that subject, and extensive community connections with it. - Editors review suggestions submitted by researchers and the public, and also periodically review existing content. - Editors of broad topic sections should be able to spend at least several hours a week reviewing content and making substantial menu updates. Editors of smaller sections of the menus within each topic section can take a more relaxed approach. - If we have enough qualified people, we could assign more than one editor to popular and busy categories. But sometimes there might be fewer editors than topics, as there are now. It's probably more important to find people who can do well at it than to have a one-to-one correspondence between editors and menus. SCNA Pages group - - Develop content that describes SCN's services, and explains the SCN Association and its activities. - Assist the Help editor and help file writers to publish the documentation that they produce. Producing enough good help files and keeping them updated is going to be a large and difficult project. - Help other SCN committees and any SCNA special projects to set up their Web pages. Personal Pages group - - Provide a section of the site that features SCN users' personal sites. Organize and promote this part of the site. - In cooperation with Web Design, Web Programming and SCN's users themselves, make available and support user-friendly tools that will make it easy to build personal Web sites on SCN. Web Design - - The Web Design people are designers, usability specialists, librarians and artists, rather than programmers. - Design the look and feel of the Web site to improve its usability and function, while listening to the technical people about what is practical. - Identify and sketch out better Web services that could be offered to users, and oversee usability testing. - Keep an eye on the taxonomic organization of the site and advise the topic editors about effectively organizing information. Web programming - - Write and adapt programming to run SCN's Web-based services. - Advise Operations about the system changes necessary to offer better Web services. Webmasters Committee, and Webmaster - - The Webmasters are people who are interested in the overall organization of the above activities. - Follow up with the different Web groups to develop ways of working together and accomplishing their objectives. Find ways to effectively interact with other SCN committees such as Volunteer Coordination, Information Provider Coordination and Operations. - Introduce new volunteers to tasks, and make sure that they have something interesting and worthwhile to do right away. (This is too often neglected at present.) - Support any of SCN's other activities with the Web services that they need. - The Webmasters committee periodically elects the SCN Webmaster, subject to approval by the Executive Committee. The Webmaster attends monthly Excomm meetings, coordinates the committee's activities, encourages people to communicate with one another, and keeps people focused on things that the committee and SCN have decided to do. If you want to do this, please nominate yourself as soon as humanly possible. Argh. Rod Clark * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Tue Oct 5 23:16:34 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: A Good Example of Communication Message-ID: Below is an example of ADVANCED notice of a meeting. This reflects planning which would increase the chances of a productive meeting. Good work! (Though one day's notice is pretty brief ....) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 22:23:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Rod Clark To: scn at scn.org Subject: Invitation to Webmasters meeting, Wed Oct 6 at 7:00 PM This has been announced in various places before, but here are some more recent details. ----- Webmasters and Topic Editors Meeting Wednesday, October 6, 7:00 - 9:00 PM U. Village QFC, upstairs meeting room at north end Everyone who's interested in the SCN Web site is welcome, including those who haven't been active lately. We hope to have a from-the-ground-up discussion. Afterward, we might be able to break up into working groups and continue to 10:00 PM in the meeting room, or move some of that to a coffee shop nearby. Anyway, we'll continue over the next few months with meetings of some smaller working groups of people interested in particular areas. Some of the purposes of this meeting are to 1. Get more people involved in the Web site. Figure out how people can hand off tasks to new volunteers and collaborate effectively with them. 2. Identify tasks within Webmasters that require different kinds of talents, and organize working groups around them. Do this in ways that can scale up as the site grows and more people become involved and the complexity of SCN's Web services increases. 3. Discuss what qualifications are needed for roles such as Community Pages topic editors. Figure out how people should be selected for those roles. Discuss how the results of their activites should be evaluated and by whom, so that volunteers can take on wider responsibilities or scale back their activities to what they can comfortable handle. 4. Agree on some realistic guidelines for the number of hours per week needed for tasks such as topic editing. Figure out ways that people can move in and out of active roles according to the time they currently have available. The Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org) has come up with some ways to do this with a similar but much larger volunteer project. Take a look and see what you think of how they organize their volunteer editors. 5. Toward the end of the meeting, initially hand out the tasks sketched out below (or however we try structuring the committee for a while) to some qualified people who have the time to devote to them and who are willing to get together with others who are interested in working on those areas. Especially do this with the Community Pages, to cover all of the topic sections if at all possible, instead of just some of them. 6. Continue refining whatever rough beginnings we have by the end of the meeting, through discussion on the Webmasters list and at meetings of various more specific task groups. Here are some notes on how we might organize some working groups within Webmasters. Please add your thoughts to this. Researchers - - Web researchers are SCN volunteers and members of the public who search for good local resources and submit them for inclusion in the SCN menus. Most of the time, most researchers would do this in one or more subject areas of particular interest to them. - Researchers also may be asked to do directed research about certain subjects, to better fill out areas identified by the webmaster and the topic editors. - No minimum time commitment is required to be a researcher. (You're all invited to go on a research binge, to help us update SCN's menus.) - Researchers, after producing some amount of good results, are eligible to become topic editors. Since that would mean a more consistent and greater time commitment, some researchers might be just as happy not to become editors. Topic Editors - - Editors are SCN volunteers with a generalist ability to evaluate and select content that supports SCN's purposes. Ideally at least one editor in each Community Pages subject area would have some current expert knowledge about that subject, and extensive community connections with it. - Editors review suggestions submitted by researchers and the public, and also periodically review existing content. - Editors of broad topic sections should be able to spend at least several hours a week reviewing content and making substantial menu updates. Editors of smaller sections of the menus within each topic section can take a more relaxed approach. - If we have enough qualified people, we could assign more than one editor to popular and busy categories. But sometimes there might be fewer editors than topics, as there are now. It's probably more important to find people who can do well at it than to have a one-to-one correspondence between editors and menus. SCNA Pages group - - Develop content that describes SCN's services, and explains the SCN Association and its activities. - Assist the Help editor and help file writers to publish the documentation that they produce. Producing enough good help files and keeping them updated is going to be a large and difficult project. - Help other SCN committees and any SCNA special projects to set up their Web pages. Personal Pages group - - Provide a section of the site that features SCN users' personal sites. Organize and promote this part of the site. - In cooperation with Web Design, Web Programming and SCN's users themselves, make available and support user-friendly tools that will make it easy to build personal Web sites on SCN. Web Design - - The Web Design people are designers, usability specialists, librarians and artists, rather than programmers. - Design the look and feel of the Web site to improve its usability and function, while listening to the technical people about what is practical. - Identify and sketch out better Web services that could be offered to users, and oversee usability testing. - Keep an eye on the taxonomic organization of the site and advise the topic editors about effectively organizing information. Web programming - - Write and adapt programming to run SCN's Web-based services. - Advise Operations about the system changes necessary to offer better Web services. Webmasters Committee, and Webmaster - - The Webmasters are people who are interested in the overall organization of the above activities. - Follow up with the different Web groups to develop ways of working together and accomplishing their objectives. Find ways to effectively interact with other SCN committees such as Volunteer Coordination, Information Provider Coordination and Operations. - Introduce new volunteers to tasks, and make sure that they have something interesting and worthwhile to do right away. (This is too often neglected at present.) - Support any of SCN's other activities with the Web services that they need. - The Webmasters committee periodically elects the SCN Webmaster, subject to approval by the Executive Committee. The Webmaster attends monthly Excomm meetings, coordinates the committee's activities, encourages people to communicate with one another, and keeps people focused on things that the committee and SCN have decided to do. If you want to do this, please nominate yourself as soon as humanly possible. Argh. Rod Clark * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bc580 at scn.org Wed Oct 6 10:22:48 1999 From: bc580 at scn.org (Marge Mazie) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: how Message-ID: i have new computer at homenow. how do i or what number tdo i have modem call to hook up scn? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From femme2 at scn.org Wed Oct 6 10:45:42 1999 From: femme2 at scn.org (Lorraine Pozzi) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:45:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Proposed Modifications to the Noise Ordinance Message-ID: We have a Noise Ordinance. The following proposal seems by its timing and language to be designed to put a chill on the many anti-WTO protesters expected in Seattle. No warning. Large fines. Even the Raging Grannies could rack up over a thousand dollars in fines if the police did not like their lyrics. * IF * this change to the Noise Ordinance is approved -- and I would hope that it fails -- its use as an intimidating device would last long beyond the WTO meeting. Any group that is traditionally viewed with suspicion by the police -- people of color, Real Change vendors, human rights protesters -- would feel that chill as well. It would be nice if organized labor stood up for basic principles rather than just how this would affect their precious few -- but that apparently is not the case. I hope that the rest of us do stand up for freedom of speech. Lorraine Pozzi femme2 at scn.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 17:29:25 -0700 |From: Newell Aldrich To: femme2 at scn.org Subject: Re: URBAN POLITICS # 72 - BUDGET PRIORITIES Lorraine, Nick Licata asked me to respond to your email, so you can pass it on to the list. There are currently revisions of the City of Seattle's Noise Ordinance up for a vote scheduled on Monday, October 11. The two biggest current issues are: 1) the removal of the requirement that Police officers first warn noisemakers; currently, officers must warn people making noise. They can only cite them if they then fail to stop making noise. The revision would allow officers to cite for first offense, in the way police can ticket motorists for speeding. Police would not be required to give tickets for first offense, same as with motorists. 2) the addition of "plainly audible" as a standard in the public disturbance noise section. If a noise is "plainly audible" from 50 feet in a residential area, or 75 feet in a nonresidential area, that would be a violation. The previous standard was "loud and raucous"; this is retained. The third big issue was brought up by organized labor. The King County Labor Council wanted protection from the ordinance, so that their right to protest or picket would be ensured, i.e. so that the noise ordinance revisions would not be used to stop protests or pickets. The additional language they wanted was "This ordinance does not apply to persons engaged in lawful picketing or in marches, parades, rallies, or special events for the purpose of providing the public with information." This language was voted into the ordinance in committee in September by a 2-1 vote, and offers solid protection for protests. The other vote was for a version that included time, place, and manner restrictions: "Sounds created by the unamplified human voice by a person or persons engaged in lawful picketing, marches, rallies or parades in nonresidential districts between the hours of 7 am and 10 pm on weekdays and 9 am and 9 pm on weekends are exempt from provisions of this ordinance." This means protestors would need a to be within the time frame, and outside residential districts, to be exempt from the Noise Ordinance. Amplified voices would not be exempt. A key issue for labor was the ability to maintain picket lines in work areas with 24-hour production, so that one shift isn't played off against another, a common management technique according the KC Labor Council. It would be possible to gain a variance to be exempt from this provision; however, that would require an advance permit request from the City (this is separate from permits needed to use a park or street), which is impossible to do on weekends; the fee is, I believe, $100. It is very likely that there will be an amendment on Monday's vote to put the time, place, and manner restrictions in the ordinance. A legal memo has been circulated to all councilmembers, and the Chief of Police sent a letter to councilmembers supporting this as well. A pro-noise control group is lobbying councilmembers as well, fearing that the language voted in would make the ordinance too hard to enforce (they all argue that anyone could claim to be a protest or rally, e.g. drunks on Frat Row at 3 a.m., or nightclubs). It would be good to get some support to Councilmembers for keeping the current language protecting the right to protest. Although we've been told by City officials that the Noise Ordinance won't be used against protestors for the WTO, if the language here is changed, it could be. The message page for the Seattle City Council is http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/council/contact.htm, if you'd like to contact Councilmembers. Newell Aldrich Aide to Seattle City Councilmember Nick Licata >>> Lorraine Pozzi 10/03 3:06 PM >>> Nick -- There have been some messages floating on the anti-WTO list about severe limitations on free speech, and very broad discretionary powers for police to impose huge fines without so much as a verbal warning. This is not a "noise" ordinance (which we already have). The way it is presented, this would be unconstitutional -- very chilling for any kind of public assembly or free speech. I assume that the warnings and the call to protest may be somewhat overblown -- can your staff post a clarification to the wto and/or fair-trade lists? Thanks for your attention. Lorraine Pozzi femme2 at scn.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From kurt at grogatch.seaslug.org Wed Oct 6 17:46:31 1999 From: kurt at grogatch.seaslug.org (Kurt Cockrum) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:46:31 -0700 Subject: question-of-the-day answered Message-ID: <199910070046.RAA29947@grogatch.seaslug.org> Rich said: >Solution needed. > >If I have a styrofoam ball one foot in diameter, how can I find the >precise location of the opposing poles? Suspend the ball from a thread attached to the eye of a needle driven into the sphere, and lower it until it touches the ground, plumbob style. It will touch at a point more or less antipodal to the point of suspension. Another thing to try is to make 2 tangent cones that match at their perpendicular bases. The sphere will be securely contained within the two joined cones. Then a line going from the apex of one cone to the other apex will pierce a diameter of the sphere. Try a hot coat-hanger. A CO2 laser bore-sighted along the apices would make the work easy. This could also be the basis for a drill-press fixture that would hold the sphere for drilling. Rather than the cones, an open-air design using tripods that bolt together, caging the sphere, might be a workable design. Lastly, try a tangent equilateral tetrahedron, with the bottom side missing. Put it over the sphere. A line from the top vertex to where the sphere touches the ground will pass thru the center of the sphere. --kurt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bp057 at scn.org Wed Oct 6 19:51:21 1999 From: bp057 at scn.org (Doug Hathaway) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:51:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: question-of-the-day answered In-Reply-To: <199910070046.RAA29947@grogatch.seaslug.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Kurt Cockrum wrote: > Rich said: > >Solution needed. > > > >If I have a styrofoam ball one foot in diameter, how can I find the > >precise location of the opposing poles? (snip) If you don't mind paint on the ball, I bet this would work: You need paint, a thin brush, and a trashbag or tarp, laid flat on the ground. Paint a thin line of paint on the tarp. Roll the ball along it. The ball will have a circle painted on it. Now paint another line (or use the same one, if paint's still wet). Roll the ball along the line again, but this time start it out so that the second circle is not painted right over the first. You will have 2 circles painted around the ball. They would be called "Great Circles" on a globe, because they are the circumference of the ball at its widest diameter (eg, the Equator, all the longitude lines). The 2 points where the circles cross will be 180 degrees from each other, regardless of the angle between the circles. If you use white paint, no one will notice once it dries. --Doug * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Wed Oct 6 23:45:12 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:45:12 -0800 Subject: Volunteers Message-ID: <199910070549.WAA26598@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ======================== Techie Volunteers Fill a Need at Charities and Schools by Olivia J. Abel (NY Times)---The Lenox Hill Neighborhood House has been providing services to the needy on the Upper East Side of Manhattan for more than a century. But the past year has seen a threefold growth in the number of people served by the agency's education programs, and David Kirchoff, its director of community services and education, credits this expansion to a new breed of technically adept volunteers. These volunteers designed and maintain a database that, among other things, tracks program participants. "We manage much better now," Kirchoff said. "Now I can pull up a profile on someone in our World of Work program and see what classes they've taken, what skills they've acquired." The database is also used to generate program reports. "It makes us more responsible to our funders and our own board of directors," Kirchoff said. "We can justify our needs. Because of it, I was able to hire a new teacher." Carl Goldschmidt, a 27-year-old software engineer who was working for HBO (he recently quit to attend graduate school in London), set up the database as a favor for a friend. But then he had a thought: What if he could recruit other corporate techies with a benevolent streak and get them working on projects at nonprofits all around the city? In 1998, spurred on by a class on community leadership, Goldschmidt founded Voluntech.org. He was soon joined in running the group by Eric Hancock and James Brooks, who both work at HBO. Eighteen months later, more than 80 volunteers from Voluntech.org are working with almost 40 nonprofit groups, doing things like setting up Web sites, designing databases and teaching Internet classes. Voluntech.org tends to focus on small grass-roots organizations. "These places really need us," Goldschmidt said. "They can have the most caring staff in the world, but you can't get anything done today without technology." A handful of other organizations provide similar services. One of them, called Mouse, works to integrate technology into New York City public schools. Another, Compumentor, based in San Francisco, was founded in 1987 and offers things like low-cost consulting services and year 2000 planning for nonprofit groups and schools. Goldschmidt cites a clear reason for the emergence of such groups: The salaries of information technology professionals have skyrocketed, putting their services out of reach for many nonprofit groups. "This is a pressing problem," Goldschmidt said. A 1999 survey by Computerworld, a trade magazine, put the average total compensation for a computer operations supervisor in the nonprofit industry at $42,600, well below the overall average of $50,687. In the business sector, it was $75,444. "I had a good tech person," Kirchoff said, "but then he got a job on Wall Street making five times as much. Now he wears three-piece suits, gets a chauffeured car to take him home to New Jersey and has catered meals. I guess sitting up late with me eating pizza didn't compare. But he says he misses the sense of community." Shannon Leskin, chief executive of Philanthropy News Network, which runs a series of national conferences on nonprofit groups and technology, said that technically adept volunteers had become vital to such organizations, as have corporate donations. (Microsoft donated all the software to the Lenox Hill Neighborhood House.) But Ms. Leskin said nonprofit groups must educate themselves to meet the information-technology industry halfway. "When we first started the conferences a year ago, there was a heavy focus on the Internet," she said. "But then we had to take a step back and look at basic infrastructures, like phones and hardware and software. We had people having epiphanies when they learned they could bookmark a Web site." Goldschmidt said that volunteer recruitment had been accomplished so far by word of mouth and through the Volun tech.org Web site (www.voluntech.org) and an occasional slide presentation at corporate information-technology departments. "We try to make projects manageable," he said. "There should be an end in sight." The volunteers who are recruited take on a variety of projects. Ron Thomas, 44, leaves his job as a system analyst at Time Inc. on most Thursday evenings and heads to the Lenox Hill Neighborhood House, where he is updating Goldschmidt's database. " "But I'll do troubleshooting -- anything they need," he said. Thomas said he had benefited from the work as well. "It has absolutely helped me build my technical skills," he said. "I learned a new database at Lenox Hill, and now people at work are always coming and asking me questions about it." Another volunteer, Peter Choe, 30, who works at Con Edison, also discovered an unanticipated bonus from helping out at the School of the Future in Manhattan, a public high school where he helped set up the school's snazzy Web site. He loved instructing students, he said, so he now teaches Java programming at Baruch College of the City University of New York. Frank Brando, who works in technical support at Young & Rubicam Advertising, recently revamped an I.B.M. laptop that had been donated to Weird Sisters, a group that supports women who are pursuing performing arts projects. Brando, 33, installed a computer program that can manage the mailing list, which had been handwritten, to announce things like performances. One nonprofit group that has asked for help is Project Enterprise, which provides business loans to entrepreneurs living below the poverty level. The executive director (and only full-time staff member), Vanessa Rudin, 34, is a former software analyst, and she is eagerly awaiting two volunteers to set up her database. "Most small nonprofits need database management and Web design work," she said. "But many don't even know where to begin. It's like picking a car salesman -- who do you trust?" Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bn890 at scn.org Thu Oct 7 15:21:18 1999 From: bn890 at scn.org (Irene Mogol) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: question-of-the-day answered In-Reply-To: <199910070046.RAA29947@grogatch.seaslug.org> Message-ID: HUH! Whaddya say? On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Kurt Cockrum wrote: > Rich said: > >Solution needed. > > > >If I have a styrofoam ball one foot in diameter, how can I find the > >precise location of the opposing poles? > > Suspend the ball from a thread attached to the eye of a needle driven > into the sphere, and lower it until it touches the ground, plumbob style. > It will touch at a point more or less antipodal to the point of suspension. > > Another thing to try is to make 2 tangent cones that match at their perpendicular > bases. The sphere will be securely contained within the two joined cones. > Then a line going from the apex of one cone to the other apex will pierce > a diameter of the sphere. Try a hot coat-hanger. A CO2 laser bore-sighted > along the apices would make the work easy. This could also be the basis for > a drill-press fixture that would hold the sphere for drilling. Rather than the > cones, an open-air design using tripods that bolt together, caging the sphere, > might be a workable design. > > Lastly, try a tangent equilateral tetrahedron, with the bottom side missing. > Put it over the sphere. A line from the top vertex to where the sphere touches > the ground will pass thru the center of the sphere. > --kurt > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bn890 at scn.org Thu Oct 7 15:26:44 1999 From: bn890 at scn.org (Irene Mogol) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: question-of-the-day answered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I still think my original idea is the best -- Carefully lay out 51-1/2 strands of spagetti across the top being careful not to let the ball roll away, sprinkle with garlic, oil and cheese and Mangia! On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Doug Hathaway wrote: > On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Kurt Cockrum wrote: > > > Rich said: > > >Solution needed. > > > > > >If I have a styrofoam ball one foot in diameter, how can I find the > > >precise location of the opposing poles? > (snip) > If you don't mind paint on the ball, I bet this would work: > You need paint, a thin brush, and a trashbag or tarp, laid flat on > the ground. > Paint a thin line of paint on the tarp. Roll the ball along it. > The ball will have a circle painted on it. > Now paint another line (or use the same one, if paint's still > wet). Roll the ball along the line again, but this time start it out so > that the second circle is not painted right over the first. > You will have 2 circles painted around the ball. They would be > called "Great Circles" on a globe, because they are the circumference of > the ball at its widest diameter (eg, the Equator, all the longitude > lines). The 2 points where the circles cross will be 180 degrees from > each other, regardless of the angle between the circles. > If you use white paint, no one will notice once it dries. > > --Doug > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Thu Oct 7 16:22:09 1999 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 16:22:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Slam the Spammer Message-ID: <199910072322.QAA21135@scn.org> Here is some news that a couple of my students uncovered. I hadn't known that! -- Doug > From: "Eric Sabisch" > To: "WWC Distribution List (E-mail)" > Subject: Interesting URL > Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:42:23 -0700 > > Hello everyone, > Last night I attended Doug's workshop on Social Responsibility and the > Internet. Great class. While doing the workshop, Jeff Kiper and myself > came across the URL talking about the anti-spam law in Washington State. > Yep, you can take a spammer to court if you reside in Washington. Anyway, > This web-site tells about the law, with links to the actual law, and has a > "how-to" section to 'Slam the Spammer'. Check it out. If you win the case, > you could potentially collect up to $ 500.00. Not bad. > > http://www.mcnichol.com/spam.htm > > ENJOY. > > Eric S. Sabisch > esabisch at uswest.net > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Thu Oct 7 19:50:29 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 18:50:29 -0800 Subject: Web page design Message-ID: <199910080154.SAA02226@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ======================== Ten Good Deeds in Web Design ...Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox When analyzing Web design, it is easy to identify a large number of mistakes that reduce usability. It is much harder to say what good things to do since I have never seen a website that was truly stellar with respect to usability. The best major site was probably amazon.com as of late 1998, but during 1999 Amazon declined in usability due to the strategy of blurring the site's focus. Of course, articles that list 30 mistakes can be seen as constructive criticism and a prescription for 30 things to do in a Web project: design to avoid each of the mistakes! Here's a list of ten additional design elements that will increase the usability of virtually all sites: 1. Place your name and logo on every page and make the logo a link to the home page (except on the home page itself, where the logo should not be a link: never have a link that points right back to the current page). 2. Provide search if the site has more than 100 pages. 3. Write straightforward and simple headlines and page titles that clearly explain what the page is about and that will make sense when read out-of-context in a search engine results listing. 4. Structure the page to facilitate scanning and help users ignore large chunks of the page in a single glance: for example, use grouping and subheadings to break a long list into several smaller units. 5. Instead of cramming everything about a product or topic into a single, infinite page, use hypertext to structure the content space into a starting page that provides an overview and several secondary pages that each focus on a specific topic. The goal is to allow users to avoid wasting time on those subtopics that don't concern them. 6. Use product photos, but avoid cluttered and bloated product family pages with lots of photos. Instead have a small photo on each of the individual product pages and link the photo to one or more bigger ones that show as much detail as users need. This varies depending on type of product. Some products may even need zoomable or rotatable photos, but reserve all such advanced features for the secondary pages. The primary product page must be fast and should be limited to a thumbnail shot. 7. Use relevance-enhanced image reduction when preparing small photos and images: instead of simply resizing the original image to a tiny and unreadable thumbnail, zoom in on the most relevant detail and use a combination of cropping and resizing. 8. Use link titles to provide users with a preview of where each link will take them, before they have clicked on it. 9. Ensure that all important pages are accessible for users with disabilities, especially blind users. 10. Do the same as everybody else: if most big websites do something in a certain way, then follow along since users will expect things to work the same on your site. Remember Jakob's Law of the Web User Experience: users spend most of their time on other sites, so that's where they form their expectations for how the Web works. Finally, always test your design with real users as a reality check. People do things in odd and unexpected ways, so even the most carefully planned project will learn from usability testing. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From aki at halcyon.com Fri Oct 8 09:17:05 1999 From: aki at halcyon.com (Aki Namioka) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Slam the Spammer In-Reply-To: <199910072322.QAA21135@scn.org> Message-ID: Its a rather restricted law, if you read the fine print, i.e. it won't affect most spammers. - Aki On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Doug Schuler wrote: > Here is some news that a couple of my students uncovered. I > hadn't known that! > > -- Doug > > > From: "Eric Sabisch" > > To: "WWC Distribution List (E-mail)" > > Subject: Interesting URL > > Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:42:23 -0700 > > > > Hello everyone, > > Last night I attended Doug's workshop on Social Responsibility and the > > Internet. Great class. While doing the workshop, Jeff Kiper and myself > > came across the URL talking about the anti-spam law in Washington State. > > Yep, you can take a spammer to court if you reside in Washington. Anyway, > > This web-site tells about the law, with links to the actual law, and has a > > "how-to" section to 'Slam the Spammer'. Check it out. If you win the case, > > you could potentially collect up to $ 500.00. Not bad. > > > > http://www.mcnichol.com/spam.htm > > > > ENJOY. > > > > Eric S. Sabisch > > esabisch at uswest.net > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe local-computer-activists > END > Thanks, Aki Helen Namioka aki at cpsr.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Fri Oct 8 09:28:30 1999 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:28:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Slam the Spammer Message-ID: <199910081628.JAA23585@scn.org> I was wondering about that. We did read the actual law since it's on-line. We probably missed the small print. What are the restrictions? -- Doug > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT) > From: Aki Namioka > To: Doug Schuler > cc: local-computer-activists at scn.org, scn at scn.org, esabisch at uswest.net, > jeff at turbotek.net > Subject: Re: Slam the Spammer > > Its a rather restricted law, if you read the fine print, i.e. it won't > affect most spammers. > > - Aki > > On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Doug Schuler wrote: > > > Here is some news that a couple of my students uncovered. I > > hadn't known that! > > > > -- Doug > > > > > From: "Eric Sabisch" > > > To: "WWC Distribution List (E-mail)" > > > Subject: Interesting URL > > > Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:42:23 -0700 > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > Last night I attended Doug's workshop on Social Responsibility and the > > > Internet. Great class. While doing the workshop, Jeff Kiper and myself > > > came across the URL talking about the anti-spam law in Washington State. > > > Yep, you can take a spammer to court if you reside in Washington. Anyway, > > > This web-site tells about the law, with links to the actual law, and has a > > > "how-to" section to 'Slam the Spammer'. Check it out. If you win the case, > > > you could potentially collect up to $ 500.00. Not bad. > > > > > > http://www.mcnichol.com/spam.htm > > > > > > ENJOY. > > > > > > Eric S. Sabisch > > > esabisch at uswest.net > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe local-computer-activists > > END > > > > Thanks, > Aki Helen Namioka > aki at cpsr.org > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From esabisch at uswest.net Fri Oct 8 10:19:20 1999 From: esabisch at uswest.net (Eric Sabisch) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 10:19:20 -0700 Subject: Slam the Spammer In-Reply-To: <199910081628.JAA23585@scn.org> Message-ID: <000001bf11b1$42d98b20$93c7b4d1@entex.com> Doug, Jeff and I skimmed over it. I will have to dig deeper, but there are a lot of loopholes and could be interpreted many ways. Then again, when is there not? Depending on how you read it, you can find something that the spammer is violating, be it using their ISP's Domain improperly, or conducting business in Wa. via electronic means. I will continue to research as I would really like to use this somehow. AH! a cause! Eric -----Original Message----- From: Doug Schuler [mailto:douglas at scn.org] Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 9:29 AM To: aki at halcyon.com Cc: esabisch at uswest.net; jeff at turbotek.net; local-computer-activists at scn.org; scn at scn.org Subject: Re: Slam the Spammer I was wondering about that. We did read the actual law since it's on-line. We probably missed the small print. What are the restrictions? -- Doug > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT) > From: Aki Namioka > To: Doug Schuler > cc: local-computer-activists at scn.org, scn at scn.org, esabisch at uswest.net, > jeff at turbotek.net > Subject: Re: Slam the Spammer > > Its a rather restricted law, if you read the fine print, i.e. it won't > affect most spammers. > > - Aki > > On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Doug Schuler wrote: > > > Here is some news that a couple of my students uncovered. I > > hadn't known that! > > > > -- Doug > > > > > From: "Eric Sabisch" > > > To: "WWC Distribution List (E-mail)" > > > Subject: Interesting URL > > > Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:42:23 -0700 > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > Last night I attended Doug's workshop on Social Responsibility and the > > > Internet. Great class. While doing the workshop, Jeff Kiper and myself > > > came across the URL talking about the anti-spam law in Washington State. > > > Yep, you can take a spammer to court if you reside in Washington. Anyway, > > > This web-site tells about the law, with links to the actual law, and has a > > > "how-to" section to 'Slam the Spammer'. Check it out. If you win the case, > > > you could potentially collect up to $ 500.00. Not bad. > > > > > > http://www.mcnichol.com/spam.htm > > > > > > ENJOY. > > > > > > Eric S. Sabisch > > > esabisch at uswest.net > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe local-computer-activists > > END > > > > Thanks, > Aki Helen Namioka > aki at cpsr.org > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From erikn at cpsr.org Sat Oct 9 09:56:22 1999 From: erikn at cpsr.org (Erik Nilsson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 09:56:22 -0700 Subject: Slam the Spammer Message-ID: <012901bf1277$39682d00$b6bc44c6@erik> For a while at least, just mentioning the WA law in a message to a spammer's domain's postmaster seemed to have some effect, but I think those days are over. I suspect most spammers either have figured out the law doesn't cover them or are offshore pirates who just don't care. These days, my primary defense against spam is aggressive filtering. I figure there are very few people who I want to get ahold of me, who can't reach me via some other means than email. Thus the risk of overfiltering is small. So when I get spam from an unlikely domain (such as click2site.com), I typically filter the whole domain. I've also filtered out messages with subject lines that are, if not spam, at least unlikely to be literate enough to interest me. Multiple exclamation marks and dollar signs in the subject lines are examples. - Erik -----Original Message----- From: Eric Sabisch To: 'Doug Schuler' ; aki at halcyon.com Cc: jeff at turbotek.net ; local-computer-activists at scn.org ; scn at scn.org Date: Friday, October 08, 1999 10:24 AM Subject: RE: Slam the Spammer >Doug, > Jeff and I skimmed over it. I will have to dig deeper, but there are a >lot of loopholes and could be interpreted many ways. Then again, when is >there not? Depending on how you read it, you can find something that the >spammer is violating, be it using their ISP's Domain improperly, or >conducting business in Wa. via electronic means. I will continue to >research as I would really like to use this somehow. > >AH! a cause! > >Eric > >-----Original Message----- >From: Doug Schuler [mailto:douglas at scn.org] >Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 9:29 AM >To: aki at halcyon.com >Cc: esabisch at uswest.net; jeff at turbotek.net; >local-computer-activists at scn.org; scn at scn.org >Subject: Re: Slam the Spammer > > >I was wondering about that. We did read the actual law since it's on-line. >We probably missed the small print. What are the restrictions? > >-- Doug > >> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Aki Namioka >> To: Doug Schuler >> cc: local-computer-activists at scn.org, scn at scn.org, esabisch at uswest.net, >> jeff at turbotek.net >> Subject: Re: Slam the Spammer >> >> Its a rather restricted law, if you read the fine print, i.e. it won't >> affect most spammers. >> >> - Aki >> >> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Doug Schuler wrote: >> >> > Here is some news that a couple of my students uncovered. I >> > hadn't known that! >> > >> > -- Doug >> > >> > > From: "Eric Sabisch" >> > > To: "WWC Distribution List (E-mail)" >> > > Subject: Interesting URL >> > > Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:42:23 -0700 >> > > >> > > Hello everyone, >> > > Last night I attended Doug's workshop on Social Responsibility and >the >> > > Internet. Great class. While doing the workshop, Jeff Kiper and >myself >> > > came across the URL talking about the anti-spam law in Washington >State. >> > > Yep, you can take a spammer to court if you reside in Washington. >Anyway, >> > > This web-site tells about the law, with links to the actual law, and >has a >> > > "how-to" section to 'Slam the Spammer'. Check it out. If you win the >case, >> > > you could potentially collect up to $ 500.00. Not bad. >> > > >> > > http://www.mcnichol.com/spam.htm >> > > >> > > ENJOY. >> > > >> > > Eric S. Sabisch >> > > esabisch at uswest.net >> > > >> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * >> > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: >> > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: >> > unsubscribe local-computer-activists >> > END >> > >> >> Thanks, >> Aki Helen Namioka >> aki at cpsr.org >> >> > >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * >. To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: >majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: >unsubscribe local-computer-activists >END * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sat Oct 9 20:15:23 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 20:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: question-of-the-day answered In-Reply-To: <199910070046.RAA29947@grogatch.seaslug.org> Message-ID: A most impressive answer. While I think the "plumbob" method is the easiest, I'm facinated by the other solutions. Thanks, Kurt Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Kurt Cockrum wrote: > Rich said: > >Solution needed. > > > >If I have a styrofoam ball one foot in diameter, how can I find the > >precise location of the opposing poles? > > Suspend the ball from a thread attached to the eye of a needle driven > into the sphere, and lower it until it touches the ground, plumbob style. > It will touch at a point more or less antipodal to the point of suspension. > > Another thing to try is to make 2 tangent cones that match at their perpendicular > bases. The sphere will be securely contained within the two joined cones. > Then a line going from the apex of one cone to the other apex will pierce > a diameter of the sphere. Try a hot coat-hanger. A CO2 laser bore-sighted > along the apices would make the work easy. This could also be the basis for > a drill-press fixture that would hold the sphere for drilling. Rather than the > cones, an open-air design using tripods that bolt together, caging the sphere, > might be a workable design. > > Lastly, try a tangent equilateral tetrahedron, with the bottom side missing. > Put it over the sphere. A line from the top vertex to where the sphere touches > the ground will pass thru the center of the sphere. > --kurt > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sat Oct 9 20:16:48 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 20:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: question-of-the-day answered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Damned clever! Thanks, Doug. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Doug Hathaway wrote: > On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Kurt Cockrum wrote: > > > Rich said: > > >Solution needed. > > > > > >If I have a styrofoam ball one foot in diameter, how can I find the > > >precise location of the opposing poles? > (snip) > If you don't mind paint on the ball, I bet this would work: > You need paint, a thin brush, and a trashbag or tarp, laid flat on > the ground. > Paint a thin line of paint on the tarp. Roll the ball along it. > The ball will have a circle painted on it. > Now paint another line (or use the same one, if paint's still > wet). Roll the ball along the line again, but this time start it out so > that the second circle is not painted right over the first. > You will have 2 circles painted around the ball. They would be > called "Great Circles" on a globe, because they are the circumference of > the ball at its widest diameter (eg, the Equator, all the longitude > lines). The 2 points where the circles cross will be 180 degrees from > each other, regardless of the angle between the circles. > If you use white paint, no one will notice once it dries. > > --Doug > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Tue Oct 12 06:52:45 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 05:52:45 -0800 Subject: Sound familiar? Message-ID: <199910121256.FAA03603@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ===================== Not His Typing by Jeanne Marie Laskas WA Post My father calls. "Can you help me?" he says in an exasperated tone. "I'm trying to order a book for your mother on the computer." "Of course," I say. "Where are you now?" He's quiet for a moment. "Where am I?" he says. "I'm on the phone with you. I'm sitting here." "No, I mean, where are you? On your computer." "Oh," he says. My mother picks up the phone."IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG?" she asks me. "Please don't shout!" my father says. "Your father said he could get this book for me," she says. "But he's been at this an hour now and, oh, I don't know, can you help him?" "Of course," I say. It's interesting to note that she has not asked me to help her, seeing as this is, after all, a book she wants. My father is my mother's link to the Internet. Technology is not her... thing. I don't think my father likes being my mother's link to the Internet. This brave new world is, to him, still very new. He feels anything but brave. My mother hangs up, and my father tells me the history of his problem. He managed to find www.amazon.com. He even found the book. "And I clicked on 'order,' " he explains. "It said I needed to set up an account. I clicked on 'okay.' It asked me for my name and address. I put that in. And then it asked for 'company name.' I don't have a company name." "Well, you just tab through that," I say. "Tab through?" "Yeah." "What's tab through?" "Push the tab button on your keyboard. It will skip to the next box." "Oh. See, they don't tell you that." No, they don't. Keyboard control is, by now, intuitive to those of us who spend our days with computers. So intuitive that it's hard to conceive of its not being intuitive. "Well, where are you now?" I ask him. Pause again. "Dad, on the computer," I say. My father is an intelligent man. One of those people who skipped a couple of grades. He sailed through medical school. Computer literacy has nothing to do with intelligence, and he is living proof. "I know that's what you meant," he says. "But I don't know where I am. I pushed 'help' and now the whole bookstore is gone." "You must have pushed 'help' on your browser," I say. "That's not the help you need." "I'm supposed to know what kind of help I need? Doesn't that say something is wrong with the help -- not me?" "It does." "I mean help is . . . help. Or it should be." "It should," I say. Everything he's saying makes sense. Just sense in a different realm. It's strange to think how two people can speak the same language, but not the same language at all. It's strange to think how this great era of telecommunications, the future that promised to bring people closer together, has put a chasm between my father and me. And he, at least, owns a computer. He knows how to turn the thing on. He's an entire world ahead of my mother. My mother and I couldn't even begin the conversation my father and I are attempting to have. "Okay, Dad," I say, "here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to go into amazon.com and I'm going to be you." "You're going to be me?" "Yeah, just give me your screen name and your password, and I'll be you, and I'll place the order." "But -- " "It's okay, Dad." I can tell he feels as though I'm asking him to cheat. My father is a man of integrity. He plays by the rules. He is a person who places a high value on never misrepresenting oneself to anyone, anywhere. How do I explain to him that there is no anyone, no anywhere, not even a oneself in this new land he's tiptoeing through? My mother picks up the phone. "JOHN," she yells, "WHY DON'T WE JUST GO TO THE BOOKSTORE? I mean, if this is so.....difficult." "It's not difficult!" he says. "Please hang up the phone." Then, to me: "Okay, you go in and be me." It's ego pressure, pure and simple. I click this, click that. "I'm just writing in your address," I say, narrating my every move like a surgeon trying to reassure the patient. When the order is complete, I give him his confirmation number. He thanks me. He says he'll call me again if he gets stuck. "Oh, but as long as I have you," he says. "Can you just tell me how I double-space when I write a letter?" "Sure," I say. "What are you using?" Pause. "What am I using? The computer." And so I settle in for what is going to be a long conversation, thinking how nice it is to spend some time with my dad. Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Wed Oct 13 18:15:58 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:15:58 -0800 Subject: Privacy Message-ID: <199910140020.RAA05537@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes This article focuses on investors, but the privacy issues should concern everyone... ========================= Sites Unmask Online Investors Before They Can Fight Back Jason Anders The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition Every day, investors crowd online message boards and chat rooms to swap thousands of often-scathing messages about companies. Most boards allow postings to be made using aliases, adding to the no-holds-barred nature of the chatter. But with increasing regularity, and relative ease, companies are uncovering the identities of their online critics. Most of the time, the users have no idea their personal information has been revealed. "Usually your name is turned over before you even knew somebody had asked for it, and it's too late to fight it," says Lyrissa Lidsky, an associate professor at the University of Florida College of Law, who has studied lawsuits filed by companies against their online critics. Web sites generally won't turn over users' personal information -- like names and addresses -- unless faced with a subpoena. But such subpoenas are easy to come by, lawyers say, and often impossible to fight. Silicon Investor (www.techstocks.com), one of the most popular stock-chat sites, says it tries to notify users who are the subjects of subpoenas, but says it has no commitment to doing so. "It's just not practical for us. We would need an entire subpoena staff to handle something like that," says Ethan Caldwell, general counsel for Go2Net, Silicon Investor's parent. Mr. Caldwell says the site receives about one subpoena a day, and in "about half" of those cases is able to give users warnings that the site is about to turn over their personal information. Since Silicon Investor is a subscription-based site, that information includes credit-card numbers and billing addresses. Mr. Caldwell admits that the warning is often only a few days before the information is to be revealed, and may not give people enough time to fight the request. While it's obviously impossible for a user to fight a subpoena he doesn't know exists, it's still difficult to block such a request even if given advanced warning. Subpoenas are generally sought at the beginning of a civil case that has been filed against "John Doe" defendants. Lawyers say courts generally issue subpoenas without question, and are reluctant to block such requests so early in a case. "This is an incredibly tough issue for us. ... Whenever we inform someone that there's a subpoena for their information, people ultimately think that somebody is going to use this information to harass them or intimidate them. Sometimes, I think that's a very legitimate fear to have," Mr. Caldwell says. He says he has been personally troubled by some of the subpoenas he has received from companies -- whom he believes may have questionable motives. "I know at times this has a chilling effect on speech, and I really think that's tragic. ... But we're in a very difficult position," he says. "People sometimes say, 'My anonymity is everything, that's why I'm here. Why won't Silicon Investor defend me?' But ultimately, people have to be responsible for what they say." Yahoo! Finance (quote.yahoo.com), a free stock-chat destination, doesn't try to notify its users about subpoenas, in part because it has no idea who most of its users are. "We don't collect or verify personal information, so there's no way we could warn anyone," says Mike Riley, senior producer of Yahoo Finance. Often, he says, Yahoo turns over an IP address, a sort of digital footprint left by computers when they visit Web sites. Companies can then use that IP address to track the user back to a particular Internet service provider, which can then be subpoenaed to uncover the user's identity. Internet giant America Online (www.aol.com), on the other hand, is widely regarded as among the most user-friendly when it comes to handling subpoenas. The service has a longstanding policy of giving its users two week's notice before it responds to a subpoena for their personal information, so that users have a chance to challenge the subpoena. (AOL also has a legal team of about 55 lawyers, compared with the two attorneys who handle most of Silicon Investor's subpoenas.) "We just feel like this is the right thing to do. Our users deserve a chance to challenge the subpoenas," says Kim McCreery, a spokeswoman for the Dulles, Va., online giant. Of course, fighting a subpoena means hiring an attorney -- an expensive and often futile move, says Blake Bell, an attorney with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York. "In most cases, plaintiffs are going to be able to get the information they want. A judge is going to be reluctant to try the case before it's even clear who the anonymous parties are," says Mr. Bell, who runs a Web site, CyberSecuritiesLaw (www.cybersecuritieslaw.com), that tracks so- called cyber libel cases. "Also you have to remember that in many cases you may be dealing with someone who isn't that familiar with lawsuits." Mr. Bell has represented companies that have sought to unmask online investors. "The average message-board user just isn't prepared for this," agrees Ms. Lidsky, the University of Florida law professor. "If someone says, 'I'm going to sue you for a million dollars,' that's enough to make most people's hearts stop, and likely enough to silence them." She says that no matter what the initial motivation may have been for a company that brings this type of suit, the cases rarely end up as anything other than an effort to silence a critic. "These people they're suing don't have any money to pay for damages. There's nothing else to sue them for except silence." Copyright 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Wed Oct 13 19:04:32 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Privacy In-Reply-To: <199910140020.RAA05537@scn.org> Message-ID: Sometimes I am amaxed that people use the web in "secure conversation" I't kinda like yelling to someone in a crowd...and getting upset because everyone heard....The web is a post card...open to all for the reading... and if you read it at work it's the property of your employer... Privacy changed radically when the Federal Gov. allowed private companies to use you Social Sec. Number for tracking...Before the right to privacy Laws went into effect it was illegal to use the SSN for anything except Social Sec. and Taxes....and the mailman reads the postcard and delivers the junk mail, does that really surprise anyone? At least we have some control over spam, but you don't get those litte samples so who needs it. Janos * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bp057 at scn.org Thu Oct 14 12:22:37 1999 From: bp057 at scn.org (Doug Hathaway) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Privacy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > Sometimes I am amaxed that people use the web in "secure conversation" I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Nelson Rockefeller, of all people, "If you don't want it known, don't say it on the phone," referring to wiretaps. --Doug * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From femme2 at scn.org Thu Oct 14 17:46:49 1999 From: femme2 at scn.org (Lorraine Pozzi) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:46:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Noise Ordinance (fwd) Message-ID: FYI. The Mayor is apparently meeting with Council members and will make a final decision on whether to veto the amended ordinance in "a few days." The Mayor's phone # is 684-4000. His e-mail address in on the attached letter. LP ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:30:35 -0700 From: Mayors Office To: femme2 at scn.org Subject: Re: Noise Ordinance Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about proposed revisions to the City's Noise Ordinance. I have received many letters and e-mails expressing interest in revisions to the Noise Control Ordinance. I strongly believe in the need for continued noise control regulation. I introduced the original revisions to the Noise Control Ordinance earlier this year. Since then, however, the City Council has made several significant changes, most of which occurred Monday, October 11 at the full Council meeting. In an effort to make my concerns clear about their proposed changes, I sent the Council a letter on Monday outlining two major concerns: 1) their attempts to restrict how, when, and where lawful picketing, marches, and rallies can occur; and 2) the lack of a first warning for commercial establishments. After finding that the Council had addressed neither of these concerns fully, I am prepared to veto the ordinance. As Seattle grows, we must be very careful to ensure our city remains a livable one�despite the increased density and its concomitant issues, such as noise. But to be a livable city also means people must be free to express their opinions. In a city preparing for a major international summit on issues about which opinions vary significantly, we must not squelch opportunities for civil expression. Similarly, in a city where music has helped to define us, and has contributed so much to our cultural landscape, we must ensure that it continues to thrive as an art form. The Council's ordinance will give music venues and other commercial establishments no warnings if they exceed noise levels. This is not acceptable. I am awaiting a letter from Council with proposed changes to the ordinance they passed this week. If they are unable to find suitable language to address these concerns, I am prepared to veto the legislation. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Very truly yours, Paul Schell (portion of original letter follows) Peace, quiet and civility are important. The potential abuses in the way this ordinance has been modified almost guarantee, however, that it will instead lead to abuses that will create major disturbances. Labor groups, civil rights groups, homeless groups and all people of color will feel that their rights have been violated by the issuance of tickets without warning and the fines that will be onerous if not impossible to pay. This is NOT the route to a civil community. Lorraine Pozzi femme2 at scn.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From vme at jps.net Thu Oct 14 19:27:30 1999 From: vme at jps.net (Victor Eskenazi) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 19:27:30 -0700 Subject: Fw: Open High Speed Internet Access Message-ID: <001b01bf16b4$d7295dc0$a4bd3fd1@Victor> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 12:41 PM Subject: Open High Speed Internet Access > Dear friend of open access: > > Earlier this year you sent a message to the King County Council supporting > open access to the Internet on AT&T/TCI's cable television system. (Your > e-mail address was obtained from public records.) I am part of a coalition > supporting open access and want to let you know of an important development. > > Last February, the Council appointed an Expert Review Panel to study whether > open access was technically feasible and whether allowing AT&T to exclusively > use their affiliated provider (Excite at Home) would be anti-competitive. Open > access is feasible and AT&T's monopoly is anti-competitive! But the panel > might find otherwise. It is being lobbied hard by AT&T. Panel members need > to hear from consumers who support open access. The panel's work is almost > complete and they will make recommendations to the County Council soon. The > panel's recommendations could have national implications as other > jurisdictions and the FCC is watching what is happening here. > > The panel is holding a public hearing on Monday, October 18th, at 6:00 p.m. > in the County Council Chambers, 10th Floor, King County Courthouse, 516 Third > Ave., Seattle. Please attend and make your views known. It will make a > difference! > > If you cannot attend, send an e-mail to the panel's consultant: Ernie Ting at > erniet at aya.yale.edu > > This is the only message you will be sent. If you want to be kept up to date > as this issue evolves, please reply. > > Sincerely, > > Jim Hammond > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From begross at scn.org Fri Oct 15 13:33:06 1999 From: begross at scn.org (SCN User) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 13:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: directory listing Message-ID: How do I change my directory listing with scn to read Barbara Gross rather than SCN user? I asked to be anonymous originally, but now I'd like to change that. Barbara Gross * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bb615 at scn.org Fri Oct 15 15:58:20 1999 From: bb615 at scn.org (Rod Clark) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: directory listing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > How do I change my directory listing with scn to read Barbara Gross rather > than SCN user? I asked to be anonymous originally, but now I'd like to > change that. > > Barbara Gross Barbara, You can send a note to SCN on the ID Change form. Ignore most of the stuff on the form, since you already have the username you want. Just ask them to change the name displayed on your existing account, sign your John Henry and there you are. http://www.scn.org/idchange.txt Rod Clark * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From Community at singlescenter.com Fri Oct 15 15:30:59 1999 From: Community at singlescenter.com (Community at singlescenter.com) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 22:30:59 +0000 Subject: Singles Role Model Search Message-ID: <2CUD02ZR.BPNRU8IE@singlescenter.com> Hello, We found your site in a search for volunteer organizations. This is a one-time mailing and you will not be added to our mailing list unless you request it. We're looking for nominations of single people, who are role models for other singles by their participation in Community Involvement activities, for The Singles Center's annual Role Model Award. Nominations are reviewed by The Singles Center staff and stories about the semi-finalist candidates are posted on the web site for voting by our single visitors. The winner receives a well-deserved 4 day vacation and their favorite charity a $500. donation. The semi-finalists and their nominators will also receive a thank-you award of a $100. Airlines discount certificate. Nominations are being accepted at http://www.singlescenter.com/Community/nominate.htm until November 30, 1999. While you are at the site you can also read about last year's winner, and stories of other singles who are involved in their community. We would also like to establish a link to your web site from our links page so other singles may find your organization at http://www.singlescenter.com/links.htm . Just use the email link there to respond. Your link will be added to our Links page where we have other useful links, including non-profit organizations, and you may add our link to http://www.singlescenter.com/foyer.htm though it is not required to submit a nomination. If you'd like to know more about The Singles Center you can read our "propaganda" at http://www.singlescenter.com/intro.htm Betty Van Volkenburg, Founder and Publisher The Singles Center http://www.singlescenter.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bb140 at scn.org Sat Oct 16 15:55:38 1999 From: bb140 at scn.org (Barb Avonia Weismann) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 15:55:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Open High Speed Internet Access (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:41:47 EDT From: Cofen99 at aol.com To: Cfjhammond at aol.com Subject: Open High Speed Internet Access Dear friend of open access: Earlier this year you sent a message to the King County Council supporting open access to the Internet on AT&T/TCI's cable television system. (Your e-mail address was obtained from public records.) I am part of a coalition supporting open access and want to let you know of an important development. Last February, the Council appointed an Expert Review Panel to study whether open access was technically feasible and whether allowing AT&T to exclusively use their affiliated provider (Excite at Home) would be anti-competitive. Open access is feasible and AT&T's monopoly is anti-competitive! But the panel might find otherwise. It is being lobbied hard by AT&T. Panel members need to hear from consumers who support open access. The panel's work is almost complete and they will make recommendations to the County Council soon. The panel's recommendations could have national implications as other jurisdictions and the FCC is watching what is happening here. The panel is holding a public hearing on Monday, October 18th, at 6:00 p.m. in the County Council Chambers, 10th Floor, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Ave., Seattle. Please attend and make your views known. It will make a difference! If you cannot attend, send an e-mail to the panel's consultant: Ernie Ting at erniet at aya.yale.edu This is the only message you will be sent. If you want to be kept up to date as this issue evolves, please reply. Sincerely, Jim Hammond * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Mon Oct 18 18:03:18 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:03:18 -0800 Subject: Web site design Message-ID: <199910190007.RAA18918@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ======================== Prioritize: Good Content Bubbles to the Top Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox If everything is equally prominent, then nothing is prominent. It is the job of the designer to advise the user and guide them to the most important or most promising choices (while ensuring their freedom to go anywhere they please). On today's Web, the most common mistake is to make everything too prominent: over-use of colors, animation, blinking, and graphics. Every element of the page screams "look at me" (while all the other design elements scream "no, look at me"). When everything is emphasized, nothing is emphasized. But it's just as bad to make everything equally bland. Here are some ways of using prioritization to guide users: Editorially select the most important stories or items. Give them bigger headlines or more prominent placement. Old principle which newspapers have used for more than a hundred years. Use sales statistics to discover the best-selling products and place them on top of search listings. By definition, most customers will be looking for the best-sellers, so it is user-hostile to bury them in a search listing that is organized by some impenetrable information retrieval algorithm (or worse: sorted by SKU numbers or other internal attributes that don't matter to users). Look at the search results for "Palm" on Buy.com and you will see three best-sellers on top, followed by about 60 other products (other than good prioritization, Buy.com has a miserable search results page: hard to scan; weird abbreviations and symbols). Use server traffic to track areas of the site that are seeing unusually strong activity and place links to these areas on the home page: not only will you save users clicks, but it's also a way of making people aware of the current buzz. The Motley Fool does so to good effect by keeping abreast of the activity of its many discussion boards and placing references to humming ones on a "hot topics" page that is linked from the home page (and summarized right on the home page). Use reputation management to predict who will write the best contributions: if somebody was highly rated in the past, then their new material deserves featured placement. Epinions has reputation data that identifies the most trusted reviewers, and it gives high prominence to these writers' postings even before they have been rated by anybody. Simply highlight the most popular items in a list that is sorted by another criterion. I use this idea myself in my list of old Alertbox columns. On slowly changing pages, mark new items with a little "new" glyph. This is not necessary on pages that change all the time (say, newspaper home pages) since the assumption is that most items will be new on such pages. There are two main types of prioritization: 1. In lists of items, make sure the ones the user is most likely to want come out on top or are made to stand out. 2. Content that is deep within the site sometimes needs to be brought out and featured at higher levels to make users understand what's new or hot. The goal is to give users more of what they need. And easier access to what they need. This is not always the same as giving people what they want: Customization does allow users to set their own priorities; thus it is one way to identify content that should be highlighted or featured. But the user's own choices are insufficient as the only basis for interface prioritization. The other mechanisms I have discussed must be employed as well to guide users to things they didn't know they needed. Disclosure: I am on the advisory board for Epinions and have also done work for The Motley Fool. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From moondawggsea at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 18:21:59 1999 From: moondawggsea at yahoo.com (Diana) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Madelyn Arnold - "Once the Greatest Show on Earth (Part I)" Message-ID: <19991019012159.11412.rocketmail@web502.yahoomail.com> Is there a way I can send my comments directly to Ms. Arnold? She's an old friend of mine. Thank you Diana Schnitzer ===== From janossz at scn.org Mon Oct 18 22:25:11 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fw: Open High Speed Internet Access In-Reply-To: <001b01bf16b4$d7295dc0$a4bd3fd1@Victor> Message-ID: Before I begin on the whole ...before you make a choice....read up on this topic.. http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/ I think that you will find that this is a shameless attack by the phone company using a "open access" as a title that missleads. The phone companies are trying to block competition that could and will in the long run benifit us at scn... Read and render an opinion....don't be duped by marketing, form either side. Janos * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From aki at halcyon.com Tue Oct 19 09:26:05 1999 From: aki at halcyon.com (Aki Namioka) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:26:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fw: Open High Speed Internet Access In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SCN is a member of an open access coalition (Joel is the representative) and has sent a letter to all the City Council members supporting open access. It is a well thought out position and one that we take seriously. If you want more information you can find it at http://www.waisp.org/ppcatv.htm and http://www.nogatekeepers.org This is the reaction to the FCC's report "In a letter sent to Kennard today, the Center for Media Education, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Media Access Project, and OMB Watch said they are "distressed" that the commission released a report "evidently intended to dissuade local franchising authorities from insisting that cable TV franchisees offer consumers the opportunity to choose among competing Internet service providers." - Aki On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > > Before I begin on the whole ...before you make a choice....read up on this > topic.. > > http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/ > > I think that you will find that this is a shameless attack by the phone > company using a "open access" as a title that missleads. > The phone companies are trying to block competition > that could and will in the long run benifit us at scn... > > > Read and render an opinion....don't be duped by marketing, form either > side. > > Janos > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > Thanks, Aki Helen Namioka aki at cpsr.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From guests at scn.org Thu Oct 21 12:52:31 1999 From: guests at scn.org (Steve and Melissa Guest) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BD: Re: Background Checks (fwd) Message-ID: below is a message Randy's given me permission to forward to this list. Lots of email has been flowing on a few other lists about the possibility of doing background checks on volunteers. Further discussions will hopefully be on this list where anyone can participate. If you're participating in this discussion, please include "background checks?" in your subject line to help readers of the list follow the thread. thanks, - Mel -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- -=-=- -=- Melissa & Steve Guest Seattle Community Network 425 653 7353 - 8am to 11pm http://www.scn.org "Supporting People and Communities with Free Internet Services" ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:31:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Groves Reply-To: scna-board at scn.org To: hardware at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org, volunteer at scn.org, volunteers at scn.org, SCN Voicemail , SCN help Subject: BD: Re: Background Checks Please note the extent of this posting - and PLEASE don't respond to the total set of lists. I am posting this broadly to stimulate discussion IN each of the lists, NOT massively across all lists. I don't know what the appropriate venue is for this discussion - perhaps the volunteers list? OK - everybody take a deep breath and back up two steps. Time out. NOBODY, as far as I know, is talking about instituting across-the-board background checks in this organization. If they are, then I'd like to hear who it is, because I, for one, would totally disagree. That said, there are some realities out there. Organizations get sued. People get sued. Whatever you think of the validity of some of the suits or even the concept of suing, it is a reality that we, as an organization need to be aware of. And there have been discussions, on different levels, about the POSSIBILITY of requiring checks for CERTAIN roles within the organization. At this point, there has been NO change in our defacto policy of NOT requiring any checks. As I see it right now there are only a few possible scenarios. 1) We may need to have background checks of board members for the purposes of getting insurance. We don't know this to be a fact. Far from it. But it is a fact that we have been researching board insurance. And it also may be the case that it will be difficult, if not impossible to attract the caliber of folks that we desire if we DON'T have insurance. 2) For positions with financial responsibility (ie, at least treasurer - MAYBE the full board) - this is probably a requirement. 3) For those that will be dealing face-to-face with fragile populations (and this wouldn't be restricted to fiduciary circumstances) (i.e. youth, disabled, elderly) where severly negative things could happen if inappropriate use of the implicit trust of the relationship took place. It may be appropriate to require some sort of checks in these instances, especially if the downside is serious damage to either the member of the population or to the organization - or both probably. It DOES seem to be the case that a majority of volunteer-based organizations are already doing this, or heading in this direction. I think this is an open topic for discussion. This is where we have been depending upon the obvious expertise of Nan and others to help us formulate a possible set of policies. 4) For those who deal with our users' private information (addresses, phone numbers, etc.) There is probably a good argument for checking this group. 5) We need to discuss in Operations what kind of qualifications we need to require for sysadmins with access to root. This is also a position of responsibility. We've worked out so far with our defacto process. Will this work for the future? Have we just been lucky? I don't propose background checks as part of this, necessarily, but Operations needs to decide. I know that the character of our organization is very much on the 'freedom of expression and speech' end of the spectrum. I know that there are quite a few of us that look askance at any hint of 'Big Brother'. But let's get real folks. Would it do us as an organization any good to appoint a treasurer who had a record for embezzlement at a different organization? Or have a person who was convicted of illegally using his relationship with an elderly client to rob them blind be put in a situation of trust with the same type of folks? I know that these are drastic examples, and there is also an argument AGAINST taking people's past lives as evidence of their present ones (I mean - think of how hard it must be for an ex-con to get a job), but I think that we have to be a BIT pragmatic here. I really don't think that it is appropriate to consider applying these standards across-the-board. But I think that we need to discuss these issues, and craft a set of policies that are ones that we can live with, AND ones that will allow this organization to do its work without unduly having to worry about what its volunteers might be up to, OR whether a suit is just around the corner. I also don't want to get so paranoid that all of our work is tainted. After all, this is SUPPOSED to be fun, right? OK - I've had my rant. Like I said - I don't know what venue is appropriate but let's talk this over - in a rational way, please. -randy * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * scna-board at scn.org For communication with members of the SCNA Board of Directors. To unsubscribe, send a message to listowner Stefani Banerian (banerian at scn.org) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From guests at scn.org Fri Oct 22 21:22:37 1999 From: guests at scn.org (Steve and Melissa Guest) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 21:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BD: Background Checks (fwd) Message-ID: forwarded with permission from John... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:30:54 -0000 From: jdean Reply-To: scna-board at scn.org To: scna-board at scn.org Subject: BD: Background Checks Randy, et. al. I volunteered with Washington Special Olympics (WSO) for many years as an organizer (one of many) of the state-wide Summer Games. For the last ten years or so they have required background checks for certain classes of volunteers. The required background check is really perfunctory and is run by the Washington State Patrol. All they do is search their database of arrests/convictions looking for a match on the volunteers name and render a report to the requesting organization (ie WSO). WSO has to have the volunteer's consenting signature on the background check request form or the WSP will not do the check. No one goes around interviewing your associates... it is not like getting a security clearance. We were told by WSO that the check was required by state law and that WSO would be in serious trouble if they employed a volunteer who had not passed the check. The law applied only to volunteers who would have "sole supervision" of minors or other persons not legally competent. No one I know of really looked into this claim by WSO, nor did we look up the text of the law. We did all assume that it had something to do with screening out known sex offenders. There may well be other variations of the law WSO was reacting to, and some of that may apply to the occasional volunteer job in SCN... but I think not to most, only to a very few. The Treasurer is another matter... bonding is the issue there. It is rudimentary prudence to have your Treasurer bonded, as much so in a volunteer organization as in a commercial enterprise. And the bonding company will simply refuse to issue the bond unless their criteria are met by the proposed bondee. Disagreeing with their criteria, even if they will disclose them to you (problematic), is neither useful nor relevant. So the answer for the Treasurer candidate is: do not stand for Treasurer unless you are willing to go through the process of getting bonded. Regards John Dean * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * scna-board at scn.org For communication with members of the SCNA Board of Directors. To unsubscribe, send a message to listowner Stefani Banerian (banerian at scn.org) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From sharma at aa.net Sat Oct 23 02:24:01 1999 From: sharma at aa.net (Sharma) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 02:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BD: Background Checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As a nurse I have been background checked pretty much every year for the last several years. You fill out a very short form, give it to the organization asking for it, and that's it. Anyone who is in contact with a helpless population, i.e. kids, disabled people, anyone who might be vulnerable, must be background checked to make sure they are not a convicted sex offender or other type of predator. The law is quite clear about the responsibility of organizations to do this. Now it may not apply to classes held in public libraries but would if anyone was going to peoples homes or in contact with kids in a not so public place. One school I was thinking of doing volunteer work at would have done a check on me before I could enter their building to do volunteer work. In the police state we live in we do not have much choice about this and I found it more annoying to think about than to do. -sharma > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:30:54 -0000 > From: jdean > Subject: BD: Background Checks > > Randy, et. al. > > I volunteered with Washington Special Olympics (WSO) for many years as an > organizer (one of many) of the state-wide Summer Games. For the last ten > years or so they have required background checks for certain classes of > volunteers. The required background check is really perfunctory and is run > by the Washington State Patrol. All they do is search their database of > arrests/convictions looking for a match on the volunteers name and render a > report to the requesting organization (ie WSO). WSO has to have the > volunteer's consenting signature on the background check request form or the > WSP will not do the check. No one goes around interviewing your > associates... it is not like getting a security clearance. > > We were told by WSO that the check was required by state law and that WSO > would be in serious trouble if they employed a volunteer who had not passed > the check. The law applied only to volunteers who would have "sole > supervision" of minors or other persons not legally competent. No one I > know of really looked into this claim by WSO, nor did we look up the text of > the law. We did all assume that it had something to do with screening out > known sex offenders. > > There may well be other variations of the law WSO was reacting to, and some > of that may apply to the occasional volunteer job in SCN... but I think not > to most, only to a very few. > > The Treasurer is another matter... bonding is the issue there. It is > rudimentary prudence to have your Treasurer bonded, as much so in a > volunteer organization as in a commercial enterprise. And the bonding > company will simply refuse to issue the bond unless their criteria are met > by the proposed bondee. Disagreeing with their criteria, even if they will > disclose them to you (problematic), is neither useful nor relevant. So the > answer for the Treasurer candidate is: do not stand for Treasurer unless you > are willing to go through the process of getting bonded. > > Regards > > John Dean > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sat Oct 23 03:17:49 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BD: Background Checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: If and when SCN gets involved (on a one-on-one basis) with special populations, then we can certainly talk about the need for this. We certainly do have a choice about becoming yet another participant in our own drift toward a police-mentality organization. Until we actually get involved with special groups, I'd prefer to see us RECRUIT vols and PLAN good programs for the community. ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Sharma wrote: > > > As a nurse I have been background checked pretty much every year for the > last several years. You fill out a very short form, give it to the > organization asking for it, and that's it. > > Anyone who is in contact with a helpless population, i.e. kids, disabled > people, anyone who might be vulnerable, must be background checked to make > sure they are not a convicted sex offender or other type of predator. The > law is quite clear about the responsibility of organizations to do this. > > Now it may not apply to classes held in public libraries but would if > anyone was going to peoples homes or in contact with kids in a not so > public place. One school I was thinking of doing volunteer work at would > have done a check on me before I could enter their building to do > volunteer work. > > In the police state we live in we do not have much choice about this and > I found it more annoying to think about than to do. > > -sharma > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:30:54 -0000 > > From: jdean > > Subject: BD: Background Checks > > > > Randy, et. al. > > > > I volunteered with Washington Special Olympics (WSO) for many years as an > > organizer (one of many) of the state-wide Summer Games. For the last ten > > years or so they have required background checks for certain classes of > > volunteers. The required background check is really perfunctory and is run > > by the Washington State Patrol. All they do is search their database of > > arrests/convictions looking for a match on the volunteers name and render a > > report to the requesting organization (ie WSO). WSO has to have the > > volunteer's consenting signature on the background check request form or the > > WSP will not do the check. No one goes around interviewing your > > associates... it is not like getting a security clearance. > > > > We were told by WSO that the check was required by state law and that WSO > > would be in serious trouble if they employed a volunteer who had not passed > > the check. The law applied only to volunteers who would have "sole > > supervision" of minors or other persons not legally competent. No one I > > know of really looked into this claim by WSO, nor did we look up the text of > > the law. We did all assume that it had something to do with screening out > > known sex offenders. > > > > There may well be other variations of the law WSO was reacting to, and some > > of that may apply to the occasional volunteer job in SCN... but I think not > > to most, only to a very few. > > > > The Treasurer is another matter... bonding is the issue there. It is > > rudimentary prudence to have your Treasurer bonded, as much so in a > > volunteer organization as in a commercial enterprise. And the bonding > > company will simply refuse to issue the bond unless their criteria are met > > by the proposed bondee. Disagreeing with their criteria, even if they will > > disclose them to you (problematic), is neither useful nor relevant. So the > > answer for the Treasurer candidate is: do not stand for Treasurer unless you > > are willing to go through the process of getting bonded. > > > > Regards > > > > John Dean > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Sat Oct 23 09:44:20 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 08:44:20 -0800 Subject: Background checks Message-ID: <199910231548.IAA10275@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ============================== Must we do criminal background checks on our volunteers? by Janet H. Hiller (Internet Nonprofit Center)---Until recently, being an interested, warm body was the main criteria for accepting an adult as a volunteer in Extension 4-H youth development programs. In Fall 1989, Washington State Cooperative Extension implemented a more stringent volunteer screening process. Three reasons precipitated this action: 1. A 1988 Washington State law allowed the Washington State Patrol to conduct free criminal conviction checks on volunteers working directly with children. 2. The university attorney general advised Extension administration to design screening procedures to lessen the risk of unwanted lawsuits. 3. Some Extension volunteers and faculty felt measures to help ensure a safe environment for youth in Extension programs were needed. In September 1988, Extension administrators gave the charge of developing screening procedures for all Extension programs involving youth to the 4-H Volunteer Development Committee. A literature search on screening procedures revealed three steps to successfully screen volunteers: application, interview, and contract. The Washington State Cooperative Extension decided on these minimal requirements: All volunteers interested in working with youth in Extension programs will complete an application form, including a criminal history disclosure form. All new organizational club leaders will be interviewed. Reference checks are optional, but highly recommended. County faculty developed management procedures that would work best for them, depending on the number of new volunteers and the number of county faculty and support staff. Many county faculty decided to interview all new volunteers and most decided to conduct reference checks. They were encouraged to develop a written policy of procedures, including who will have access to the confidential files, and keep records as long as the individuals are Extension volunteers. County faculty were given a chance to review the procedures and forms and offer suggestions. Ninety minutes of training were provided to each county Extension office over a satellite system. Training included philosophy statements by the state 4-H leader, an explanation of the procedures and forms by a state 4-H specialist, comments by a county Extension agent on management procedures, and legal and philosophical information from the Washington State University attorney general. In Spring 1990, a mail survey asked Extension agents in 40 Washington counties about the process. Of the 32 respondents, two said that the process had "not worked very well," 10 answered "okay," 15 "well," and five "very well." Agents liked receiving the necessary forms from the state Extension bulletin office and the 10- day or less turn around time for the Washington State Patrol to conduct the conviction check. Some county faculty felt the screening process should be expanded to include all leaders, not just new applicants. Recommendations were made to develop a program to train volunteers to conduct the interviews and reference checks. Some recommended expanding the screening to include checks on individuals coming to Washington from other states and checking for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) convictions. Washington is in the second year of using a statewide screening process and firmly believes that having an Extension volunteer screening process says that Extension cares about the safety of the children and youth participating in its programs. The Internet Nonprofit Center, the Nonprofit Locator, the Library, and the Form 990 Project are projects of The Evergreen State Society, in Seattle, WA, USA. These pages copyright 1999. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From grayfox at foxinternet.net Sat Oct 23 11:38:19 1999 From: grayfox at foxinternet.net (Kenneth Crandall) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:38:19 -0700 Subject: BD: Background Checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I work with SeniorNet of Puget Sound. We have a facility on a Bellevue Elementary school campus. Everyone in our organization, who works in this facility, are required to undergo this screening process. It is painless as it is run by the Bellevue school district. I do not consider these painless processes, that have been developed to help insure the safety of our children, to be a "police state" mentality. Whenever we read about attacks on children, the question is always raised by the public, "Why wasn't something done to protect them?". This is the something. SCN should consider it's goals and objectives before similar screening should be proposed for it's volunteers. If some volunteers will be working directly with children or disabled people (and I hope they would), then it is possible that screening should be considered for these volunteers only. The fact that we are teaching at a public library is not adequate to prevent the need for screening since liaisons can be setup to occur outside of the library. It should be simple enough to get guidance from the Washington State Patrol, who conduct these screenings, to determine if some of our volunteers would have to be screened. Ken Crandall bd252 at scn.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Sharma Sent: Saturday, October 23, 1999 2:24 AM To: scn at scn.org Subject: Re: BD: Background Checks As a nurse I have been background checked pretty much every year for the last several years. You fill out a very short form, give it to the organization asking for it, and that's it. Anyone who is in contact with a helpless population, i.e. kids, disabled people, anyone who might be vulnerable, must be background checked to make sure they are not a convicted sex offender or other type of predator. The law is quite clear about the responsibility of organizations to do this. Now it may not apply to classes held in public libraries but would if anyone was going to peoples homes or in contact with kids in a not so public place. One school I was thinking of doing volunteer work at would have done a check on me before I could enter their building to do volunteer work. In the police state we live in we do not have much choice about this and I found it more annoying to think about than to do. -sharma > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:30:54 -0000 > From: jdean > Subject: BD: Background Checks > > Randy, et. al. > > I volunteered with Washington Special Olympics (WSO) for many years as an > organizer (one of many) of the state-wide Summer Games. For the last ten > years or so they have required background checks for certain classes of > volunteers. The required background check is really perfunctory and is run > by the Washington State Patrol. All they do is search their database of > arrests/convictions looking for a match on the volunteers name and render a > report to the requesting organization (ie WSO). WSO has to have the > volunteer's consenting signature on the background check request form or the > WSP will not do the check. No one goes around interviewing your > associates... it is not like getting a security clearance. > > We were told by WSO that the check was required by state law and that WSO > would be in serious trouble if they employed a volunteer who had not passed > the check. The law applied only to volunteers who would have "sole > supervision" of minors or other persons not legally competent. No one I > know of really looked into this claim by WSO, nor did we look up the text of > the law. We did all assume that it had something to do with screening out > known sex offenders. > > There may well be other variations of the law WSO was reacting to, and some > of that may apply to the occasional volunteer job in SCN... but I think not > to most, only to a very few. > > The Treasurer is another matter... bonding is the issue there. It is > rudimentary prudence to have your Treasurer bonded, as much so in a > volunteer organization as in a commercial enterprise. And the bonding > company will simply refuse to issue the bond unless their criteria are met > by the proposed bondee. Disagreeing with their criteria, even if they will > disclose them to you (problematic), is neither useful nor relevant. So the > answer for the Treasurer candidate is: do not stand for Treasurer unless you > are willing to go through the process of getting bonded. > > Regards > > John Dean > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Sat Oct 23 13:55:34 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 13:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BD: Background Checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have been backgound checked several times for differnt agencies... The information that they are getting is public for the most part... The gamble of not behaving in a responsible manner is not a wise choice... we owe it to each other and our users to not loose what we have worked for over the years...especially when the background check is so easy to do. Where I work I do background checks on all employees I use...I have had no failures to date... and if someone does fail it does not mean they can't work with us it just means that they would be resticted in their job title. Janos On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Rich Littleton wrote: > > If and when SCN gets involved (on a one-on-one basis) with special > populations, then we can certainly talk about the need for this. We > certainly do have a choice about becoming yet another participant in > our own drift toward a police-mentality organization. > > Until we actually get involved with special groups, I'd prefer to see us > RECRUIT vols and PLAN good programs for the community. > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** > > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Sharma wrote: > > > > > > > As a nurse I have been background checked pretty much every year for the > > last several years. You fill out a very short form, give it to the > > organization asking for it, and that's it. > > > > Anyone who is in contact with a helpless population, i.e. kids, disabled > > people, anyone who might be vulnerable, must be background checked to make > > sure they are not a convicted sex offender or other type of predator. The > > law is quite clear about the responsibility of organizations to do this. > > > > Now it may not apply to classes held in public libraries but would if > > anyone was going to peoples homes or in contact with kids in a not so > > public place. One school I was thinking of doing volunteer work at would > > have done a check on me before I could enter their building to do > > volunteer work. > > > > In the police state we live in we do not have much choice about this and > > I found it more annoying to think about than to do. > > > > -sharma > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:30:54 -0000 > > > From: jdean > > > Subject: BD: Background Checks > > > > > > Randy, et. al. > > > > > > I volunteered with Washington Special Olympics (WSO) for many years as an > > > organizer (one of many) of the state-wide Summer Games. For the last ten > > > years or so they have required background checks for certain classes of > > > volunteers. The required background check is really perfunctory and is run > > > by the Washington State Patrol. All they do is search their database of > > > arrests/convictions looking for a match on the volunteers name and render a > > > report to the requesting organization (ie WSO). WSO has to have the > > > volunteer's consenting signature on the background check request form or the > > > WSP will not do the check. No one goes around interviewing your > > > associates... it is not like getting a security clearance. > > > > > > We were told by WSO that the check was required by state law and that WSO > > > would be in serious trouble if they employed a volunteer who had not passed > > > the check. The law applied only to volunteers who would have "sole > > > supervision" of minors or other persons not legally competent. No one I > > > know of really looked into this claim by WSO, nor did we look up the text of > > > the law. We did all assume that it had something to do with screening out > > > known sex offenders. > > > > > > There may well be other variations of the law WSO was reacting to, and some > > > of that may apply to the occasional volunteer job in SCN... but I think not > > > to most, only to a very few. > > > > > > The Treasurer is another matter... bonding is the issue there. It is > > > rudimentary prudence to have your Treasurer bonded, as much so in a > > > volunteer organization as in a commercial enterprise. And the bonding > > > company will simply refuse to issue the bond unless their criteria are met > > > by the proposed bondee. Disagreeing with their criteria, even if they will > > > disclose them to you (problematic), is neither useful nor relevant. So the > > > answer for the Treasurer candidate is: do not stand for Treasurer unless you > > > are willing to go through the process of getting bonded. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > John Dean > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe scn > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From kurt at grogatch.seaslug.org Sat Oct 23 13:16:12 1999 From: kurt at grogatch.seaslug.org (Kurt Cockrum) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 13:16:12 -0700 Subject: Background checks Message-ID: <199910232016.NAA29343@grogatch.seaslug.org> Steve posted: >[...] >(Internet Nonprofit Center)---Until recently, being an interested, warm >body was the main criteria for accepting an adult as a volunteer in >Extension 4-H youth development programs. In Fall 1989, >Washington State Cooperative Extension implemented a more >stringent volunteer screening process. Three reasons precipitated >this action: > >1. A 1988 Washington State law allowed the Washington State ^^^^^^^ >Patrol to conduct free criminal conviction checks on volunteers >working directly with children. > >2. The university attorney general advised Extension ^^^^^^^ >administration to design screening procedures to lessen the risk of ^^^^ >unwanted lawsuits. > >3. Some Extension volunteers and faculty felt measures to help ^^^^ >ensure a safe environment for youth in Extension programs were >needed. >[...] Not one genuine hazard or existing safety condition was identified here! It's all vague, mushy stuff, about what might possibly happen. It's the sort of thing all the Nice People and Ed.D. cush-makers at Columbine HS were busy with *before* the shooting, and probably what they are busy with right now: counting their toes, verifying their colleagues' toe-counts, and making policy. Fat lot of good it did them... And *fear* as a basis of policy is never assuaged for long, which means that the policies intended to assuage that fear lose their efficacy (and note most carefully that this happens regardless of whether any incidents covered by the policies occur or not!), and the fear comes back, in a sort of "relaxation"-type periodicity, giving a cyclic character to the process. In electronics, an RC oscillator exhibits these properties nicely. So do addictions of various sorts. Unfortunately, while fear has the properties of accumulation and dissipation, the policies they drive are long-lived artifacts, which hang around, accreting, over many fear-cycles. So what emerges out of all of this is sort of a ratcheting-type pattern that eventually even causes the policy-makers to complain (the only element of justice in the whole affair, usually long-delayed). And this is why it's fundamentally unsound. On a national scale, I think Thomas Jefferson guessed the optimal time-constant to be about 20 years :) Unless policy-makers are mindful of this stuff *and* don't want it to happen. Note the conjunction. --kurt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From kurt at grogatch.seaslug.org Sat Oct 23 13:51:34 1999 From: kurt at grogatch.seaslug.org (Kurt Cockrum) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 13:51:34 -0700 Subject: background checks Message-ID: <199910232051.NAA29525@grogatch.seaslug.org> >From Steve's post: >[...] >Washington is in the second year of using a statewide screening >process and firmly believes that having an Extension volunteer ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ >screening process says that Extension cares about the safety of the ^^^^ ^^^^^ >children and youth participating in its programs. More marshmallow stuff. "We are unwavering in our determination not to wobble, resolute in our firm resolve not to waver, and we are adamant in our resolutions" :) >In Spring 1990, a mail survey asked Extension agents in 40 >Washington counties about the process. Of the 32 respondents, two >said that the process had "not worked very well," 10 answered >"okay," 15 "well," and five "very well." Agents liked receiving the ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ >necessary forms from the state Extension bulletin office and the 10- >day or less turn around time for the Washington State Patrol to >conduct the conviction check. So what's the story on the two dissatisfied agents? Did a psychopath slip thru the process and proceed to decimate the county's children before being shot by a sniper? Two times in two counties? Or maybe it was the 2 agents that slipped thru? Devious rascals! Or are they just soreheads not with the program? Inquiring minds want to know :) --kurt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Sun Oct 24 10:35:06 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background checks In-Reply-To: <199910232016.NAA29343@grogatch.seaslug.org> Message-ID: Kurt the hazard of not acting responsably is loosing the system that we have built... Kurt, I know that I have cleared the system....there is little doubt that all of us will... but if we don't ....we could be considered negligant is a future action.. This is a standard that we will have to impose on ourselves or face the reality of a dwindling support from our users and corperate supporters. The standard is that of outside influence.... and given the nature of our history we have always been affected by that force. Janos > > Not one genuine hazard or existing safety condition was identified here! > It's all vague, mushy stuff, about what might possibly happen. It's the > sort of thing all the Nice People and Ed.D. cush-makers at Columbine > HS were busy with *before* the shooting, and probably what they are > busy with right now: counting their toes, verifying their colleagues' > toe-counts, and making policy. Fat lot of good it did them... > > And *fear* as a basis of policy is never assuaged for long, which means > that the policies intended to assuage that fear lose their efficacy > (and note most carefully that this happens regardless of whether any > incidents covered by the policies occur or not!), and the fear comes back, > in a sort of "relaxation"-type periodicity, giving a cyclic character to > the process. In electronics, an RC oscillator exhibits these properties > nicely. So do addictions of various sorts. > > Unfortunately, while fear has the properties of accumulation and > dissipation, the policies they drive are long-lived artifacts, which > hang around, accreting, over many fear-cycles. So what emerges out of > all of this is sort of a ratcheting-type pattern that eventually even > causes the policy-makers to complain (the only element of justice in the > whole affair, usually long-delayed). And this is why it's fundamentally > unsound. > > On a national scale, I think Thomas Jefferson guessed the optimal > time-constant to be about 20 years :) > > Unless policy-makers are mindful of this stuff *and* don't want it > to happen. Note the conjunction. > --kurt > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bb615 at scn.org Sun Oct 24 11:01:36 1999 From: bb615 at scn.org (Rod Clark) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > This is a standard that we will have to impose on ourselves or face > the reality of a dwindling support from our users and corperate > supporters. > > The standard is that of outside influence.... and given the nature > of our history we have always been affected by that force. > > Janos Janos, You might be speaking of history in general. But SCN has no real corporate supporters, as such. A few people like Sharma (Affinity Something-or-other) and the League of Women Voters and the Betty and Liz Foundation and Amnesty International and a science supplies shop in the U District and a computer shop in Ballard and a few other people and small businesses that I can't recall right now have each donated a few hundred bucks to sponsor a phone line from time to time. That's about it. We've never heard a peep out of any of them about SCN's policies (except for Sharma, who's on the board and only lately decided to sponsor a phone line). If anything, it's more likely that the SCNA board would politely tell the phone sponsors to go jump in the nearest lake if they complained about SCN's policies. And as far as I know, the members of the SCN Association aren't in any hurry to elect anyone who has the opposite view. Rod Clark * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Sun Oct 24 11:13:33 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That little that you mention is a lot if you go back to when that support was innitally given... it did help us expand and kept us going a little bit longer.... Exposing ourselves to unnessary risk is not in our best intrests. We look both ways when we cross the street even when we know in our minds that no cars are coming... Does that make us paranoid or are we just acting in our best intrests? Janos On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Rod Clark wrote: > > This is a standard that we will have to impose on ourselves or face > > the reality of a dwindling support from our users and corperate > > supporters. > > > > The standard is that of outside influence.... and given the nature > > of our history we have always been affected by that force. > > > > Janos > > Janos, > > You might be speaking of history in general. But SCN has no > real corporate supporters, as such. A few people like Sharma > (Affinity Something-or-other) and the League of Women Voters and > the Betty and Liz Foundation and Amnesty International and a > science supplies shop in the U District and a computer shop in > Ballard and a few other people and small businesses that I can't > recall right now have each donated a few hundred bucks to > sponsor a phone line from time to time. That's about it. We've > never heard a peep out of any of them about SCN's policies > (except for Sharma, who's on the board and only lately decided > to sponsor a phone line). If anything, it's more likely that the > SCNA board would politely tell the phone sponsors to go jump in > the nearest lake if they complained about SCN's policies. And as > far as I know, the members of the SCN Association aren't in any > hurry to elect anyone who has the opposite view. > > Rod Clark > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== r> * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bb615 at scn.org Sun Oct 24 11:27:31 1999 From: bb615 at scn.org (Rod Clark) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > That little that you mention is a lot if you go back to when that > support was innitally given... it did help us expand and kept us > going a little bit longer.... > > Exposing ourselves to unnessary risk is not in our best intrests. Janos, I don't disagree with your general view about taking unnecessary risks. But I do disagree with your reasoning that protecting sources of outside funding is so essential to SCN that it should drive SCN's policies. Your memory must be different from mine, or from earlier in the project. My impression was that SCN's continuation was never threatened by a lack of business contributions. Rod Clark * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sun Oct 24 11:36:12 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Absence of target populations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The key elements for needing background checks are two: 1. fragile populations (people over which one has much control); 2. sole control of that population (one person only having that control) That does not exist in SCN(A). We don't do home visits to shutins. We don't have one person teaching a group of exclusively fragile persons. Given our difficulties in recruiting (and keeping) volunteers, we won't have enough vols. to expand out services to fragile populations before the next (3000) millenium. I once taught an e-mail class in which a 7-year-old was a student. Howver, there were 2 other teachers, and 5 students, and it was in a public library. This is NOT the type of situation for which background checks are needed, yet this is as close as we come. However, there are other areas of real importance that SCN(A) people can put effort into. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Kenneth Crandall wrote: > I work with SeniorNet of Puget Sound. We have a facility on a Bellevue > Elementary school campus. Everyone in our organization, who works in this > facility, are required to undergo this screening process. It is painless as > it is run by the Bellevue school district. > > I do not consider these painless processes, that have been developed to help > insure the safety of our children, to be a "police state" mentality. > Whenever we read about attacks on children, the question is always raised by > the public, "Why wasn't something done to protect them?". This is the > something. > > SCN should consider it's goals and objectives before similar screening > should be proposed for it's volunteers. If some volunteers will be working > directly with children or disabled people (and I hope they would), then it > is possible that screening should be considered for these volunteers only. > > The fact that we are teaching at a public library is not adequate to prevent > the need for screening since liaisons can be setup to occur outside of the > library. It should be simple enough to get guidance from the Washington > State Patrol, who conduct these screenings, to determine if some of our > volunteers would have to be screened. > Ken Crandall > bd252 at scn.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Sharma > Sent: Saturday, October 23, 1999 2:24 AM > To: scn at scn.org > Subject: Re: BD: Background Checks > > As a nurse I have been background checked pretty much every year for the > last several years. You fill out a very short form, give it to the > organization asking for it, and that's it. > > Anyone who is in contact with a helpless population, i.e. kids, disabled > people, anyone who might be vulnerable, must be background checked to make > sure they are not a convicted sex offender or other type of predator. The > law is quite clear about the responsibility of organizations to do this. > > Now it may not apply to classes held in public libraries but would if > anyone was going to peoples homes or in contact with kids in a not so > public place. One school I was thinking of doing volunteer work at would > have done a check on me before I could enter their building to do > volunteer work. > > In the police state we live in we do not have much choice about this and > I found it more annoying to think about than to do. > > -sharma > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:30:54 -0000 > > From: jdean > > Subject: BD: Background Checks > > > > Randy, et. al. > > > > I volunteered with Washington Special Olympics (WSO) for many years as an > > organizer (one of many) of the state-wide Summer Games. For the last ten > > years or so they have required background checks for certain classes of > > volunteers. The required background check is really perfunctory and is > run > > by the Washington State Patrol. All they do is search their database of > > arrests/convictions looking for a match on the volunteers name and render > a > > report to the requesting organization (ie WSO). WSO has to have the > > volunteer's consenting signature on the background check request form or > the > > WSP will not do the check. No one goes around interviewing your > > associates... it is not like getting a security clearance. > > > > We were told by WSO that the check was required by state law and that WSO > > would be in serious trouble if they employed a volunteer who had not > passed > > the check. The law applied only to volunteers who would have "sole > > supervision" of minors or other persons not legally competent. No one I > > know of really looked into this claim by WSO, nor did we look up the text > of > > the law. We did all assume that it had something to do with screening out > > known sex offenders. > > > > There may well be other variations of the law WSO was reacting to, and > some > > of that may apply to the occasional volunteer job in SCN... but I think > not > > to most, only to a very few. > > > > The Treasurer is another matter... bonding is the issue there. It is > > rudimentary prudence to have your Treasurer bonded, as much so in a > > volunteer organization as in a commercial enterprise. And the bonding > > company will simply refuse to issue the bond unless their criteria are met > > by the proposed bondee. Disagreeing with their criteria, even if they > will > > disclose them to you (problematic), is neither useful nor relevant. So > the > > answer for the Treasurer candidate is: do not stand for Treasurer unless > you > > are willing to go through the process of getting bonded. > > > > Regards > > > > John Dean > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Sun Oct 24 11:45:20 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Absence of target populations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rich, That 7 year old boy... even with other teachers...was a liability.. Thank you for citing an example. Janos On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Rich Littleton wrote: > > The key elements for needing background checks are two: > 1. fragile populations (people over which one has much control); > 2. sole control of that population (one person only having that control) > > That does not exist in SCN(A). > > We don't do home visits to shutins. > > We don't have one person teaching a group of exclusively fragile persons. > > Given our difficulties in recruiting (and keeping) volunteers, we won't > have enough vols. to expand out services to fragile populations before the > next (3000) millenium. > > I once taught an e-mail class in which a 7-year-old was a student. > Howver, there were 2 other teachers, and 5 students, and it was in a > public library. This is NOT the type of situation for which background > checks are needed, yet this is as close as we come. > > However, there are other areas of real importance that SCN(A) people can > put effort into. > > Rich > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** > > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Kenneth Crandall wrote: > > > I work with SeniorNet of Puget Sound. We have a facility on a Bellevue > > Elementary school campus. Everyone in our organization, who works in this > > facility, are required to undergo this screening process. It is painless as > > it is run by the Bellevue school district. > > > > I do not consider these painless processes, that have been developed to help > > insure the safety of our children, to be a "police state" mentality. > > Whenever we read about attacks on children, the question is always raised by > > the public, "Why wasn't something done to protect them?". This is the > > something. > > > > SCN should consider it's goals and objectives before similar screening > > should be proposed for it's volunteers. If some volunteers will be working > > directly with children or disabled people (and I hope they would), then it > > is possible that screening should be considered for these volunteers only. > > > > The fact that we are teaching at a public library is not adequate to prevent > > the need for screening since liaisons can be setup to occur outside of the > > library. It should be simple enough to get guidance from the Washington > > State Patrol, who conduct these screenings, to determine if some of our > > volunteers would have to be screened. > > Ken Crandall > > bd252 at scn.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Sharma > > Sent: Saturday, October 23, 1999 2:24 AM > > To: scn at scn.org > > Subject: Re: BD: Background Checks > > > > As a nurse I have been background checked pretty much every year for the > > last several years. You fill out a very short form, give it to the > > organization asking for it, and that's it. > > > > Anyone who is in contact with a helpless population, i.e. kids, disabled > > people, anyone who might be vulnerable, must be background checked to make > > sure they are not a convicted sex offender or other type of predator. The > > law is quite clear about the responsibility of organizations to do this. > > > > Now it may not apply to classes held in public libraries but would if > > anyone was going to peoples homes or in contact with kids in a not so > > public place. One school I was thinking of doing volunteer work at would > > have done a check on me before I could enter their building to do > > volunteer work. > > > > In the police state we live in we do not have much choice about this and > > I found it more annoying to think about than to do. > > > > -sharma > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:30:54 -0000 > > > From: jdean > > > Subject: BD: Background Checks > > > > > > Randy, et. al. > > > > > > I volunteered with Washington Special Olympics (WSO) for many years as an > > > organizer (one of many) of the state-wide Summer Games. For the last ten > > > years or so they have required background checks for certain classes of > > > volunteers. The required background check is really perfunctory and is > > run > > > by the Washington State Patrol. All they do is search their database of > > > arrests/convictions looking for a match on the volunteers name and render > > a > > > report to the requesting organization (ie WSO). WSO has to have the > > > volunteer's consenting signature on the background check request form or > > the > > > WSP will not do the check. No one goes around interviewing your > > > associates... it is not like getting a security clearance. > > > > > > We were told by WSO that the check was required by state law and that WSO > > > would be in serious trouble if they employed a volunteer who had not > > passed > > > the check. The law applied only to volunteers who would have "sole > > > supervision" of minors or other persons not legally competent. No one I > > > know of really looked into this claim by WSO, nor did we look up the text > > of > > > the law. We did all assume that it had something to do with screening out > > > known sex offenders. > > > > > > There may well be other variations of the law WSO was reacting to, and > > some > > > of that may apply to the occasional volunteer job in SCN... but I think > > not > > > to most, only to a very few. > > > > > > The Treasurer is another matter... bonding is the issue there. It is > > > rudimentary prudence to have your Treasurer bonded, as much so in a > > > volunteer organization as in a commercial enterprise. And the bonding > > > company will simply refuse to issue the bond unless their criteria are met > > > by the proposed bondee. Disagreeing with their criteria, even if they > > will > > > disclose them to you (problematic), is neither useful nor relevant. So > > the > > > answer for the Treasurer candidate is: do not stand for Treasurer unless > > you > > > are willing to go through the process of getting bonded. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > John Dean > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe scn > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe scn > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sun Oct 24 12:23:12 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 12:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BD: Background Checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: But, the point is, the needs of your work (and Sharma's) are not the needs of SCN(A). SCN(A) does not NEED such checks. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Sun Oct 24 13:01:19 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BD: Background Checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SCN has interface with the public, we do note control this public (in terms of age and vulnerability)... so we do need these checks... If we do not want checks then we can restrict the access to classes, meetings, and any computer fair where we are exposed to this type of liability... Arguing the point is pointless... why not get a legal opinion or two? Janos On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Rich Littleton wrote: > > But, the point is, the needs of your work (and Sharma's) are not the needs > of SCN(A). SCN(A) does not NEED such checks. > > Rich > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Sun Oct 24 13:05:49 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BD: Background Checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An accidental error in programing can expose us to liability. In todays society the mentality of the "sewers" (pun intended) is the danger, we cannot live i a dream world. Janos On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Rich Littleton wrote: > > If and when SCN gets involved (on a one-on-one basis) with special > populations, then we can certainly talk about the need for this. We > certainly do have a choice about becoming yet another participant in > our own drift toward a police-mentality organization. > > Until we actually get involved with special groups, I'd prefer to see us > RECRUIT vols and PLAN good programs for the community. > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** > > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Sharma wrote: > > > > > > > As a nurse I have been background checked pretty much every year for the > > last several years. You fill out a very short form, give it to the > > organization asking for it, and that's it. > > > > Anyone who is in contact with a helpless population, i.e. kids, disabled > > people, anyone who might be vulnerable, must be background checked to make > > sure they are not a convicted sex offender or other type of predator. The > > law is quite clear about the responsibility of organizations to do this. > > > > Now it may not apply to classes held in public libraries but would if > > anyone was going to peoples homes or in contact with kids in a not so > > public place. One school I was thinking of doing volunteer work at would > > have done a check on me before I could enter their building to do > > volunteer work. > > > > In the police state we live in we do not have much choice about this and > > I found it more annoying to think about than to do. > > > > -sharma > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:30:54 -0000 > > > From: jdean > > > Subject: BD: Background Checks > > > > > > Randy, et. al. > > > > > > I volunteered with Washington Special Olympics (WSO) for many years as an > > > organizer (one of many) of the state-wide Summer Games. For the last ten > > > years or so they have required background checks for certain classes of > > > volunteers. The required background check is really perfunctory and is run > > > by the Washington State Patrol. All they do is search their database of > > > arrests/convictions looking for a match on the volunteers name and render a > > > report to the requesting organization (ie WSO). WSO has to have the > > > volunteer's consenting signature on the background check request form or the > > > WSP will not do the check. No one goes around interviewing your > > > associates... it is not like getting a security clearance. > > > > > > We were told by WSO that the check was required by state law and that WSO > > > would be in serious trouble if they employed a volunteer who had not passed > > > the check. The law applied only to volunteers who would have "sole > > > supervision" of minors or other persons not legally competent. No one I > > > know of really looked into this claim by WSO, nor did we look up the text of > > > the law. We did all assume that it had something to do with screening out > > > known sex offenders. > > > > > > There may well be other variations of the law WSO was reacting to, and some > > > of that may apply to the occasional volunteer job in SCN... but I think not > > > to most, only to a very few. > > > > > > The Treasurer is another matter... bonding is the issue there. It is > > > rudimentary prudence to have your Treasurer bonded, as much so in a > > > volunteer organization as in a commercial enterprise. And the bonding > > > company will simply refuse to issue the bond unless their criteria are met > > > by the proposed bondee. Disagreeing with their criteria, even if they will > > > disclose them to you (problematic), is neither useful nor relevant. So the > > > answer for the Treasurer candidate is: do not stand for Treasurer unless you > > > are willing to go through the process of getting bonded. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > John Dean > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe scn > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sun Oct 24 17:31:27 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What Kurt Said ... In-Reply-To: <199910232016.NAA29343@grogatch.seaslug.org> Message-ID: Kurt's specifics go to the heart of the argument. Background checks are not appropriate for the realiites of SCNA. SCNA does not deal with fragile populations with single volunteers who have sole control over those populations. Let's put effort into things that ARE important to SCN(A). * An easier e-mail program for SCN users; * Board elections in which all SCNA members can vote; * Actively recruiting volunteers; * Informing SCNA members of issues BEFORE the issues are adopted by the board; * Survey of scn users to make reasonable planning possible; * Recognition of volunteers on an on-going basis; * Sharing relevant information with the SCNA membership even if the info orginates within a specific committee. * (add your own) Later, Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Kurt Cockrum wrote: > Steve posted: > >[...] > >(Internet Nonprofit Center)---Until recently, being an interested, warm > >body was the main criteria for accepting an adult as a volunteer in > >Extension 4-H youth development programs. In Fall 1989, > >Washington State Cooperative Extension implemented a more > >stringent volunteer screening process. Three reasons precipitated > >this action: > > > >1. A 1988 Washington State law allowed the Washington State > ^^^^^^^ > >Patrol to conduct free criminal conviction checks on volunteers > >working directly with children. > > > >2. The university attorney general advised Extension > ^^^^^^^ > >administration to design screening procedures to lessen the risk of > ^^^^ > >unwanted lawsuits. > > > >3. Some Extension volunteers and faculty felt measures to help > ^^^^ > >ensure a safe environment for youth in Extension programs were > >needed. > >[...] > > Not one genuine hazard or existing safety condition was identified here! > It's all vague, mushy stuff, about what might possibly happen. It's the > sort of thing all the Nice People and Ed.D. cush-makers at Columbine > HS were busy with *before* the shooting, and probably what they are > busy with right now: counting their toes, verifying their colleagues' > toe-counts, and making policy. Fat lot of good it did them... > > And *fear* as a basis of policy is never assuaged for long, which means > that the policies intended to assuage that fear lose their efficacy > (and note most carefully that this happens regardless of whether any > incidents covered by the policies occur or not!), and the fear comes back, > in a sort of "relaxation"-type periodicity, giving a cyclic character to > the process. In electronics, an RC oscillator exhibits these properties > nicely. So do addictions of various sorts. > > Unfortunately, while fear has the properties of accumulation and > dissipation, the policies they drive are long-lived artifacts, which > hang around, accreting, over many fear-cycles. So what emerges out of > all of this is sort of a ratcheting-type pattern that eventually even > causes the policy-makers to complain (the only element of justice in the > whole affair, usually long-delayed). And this is why it's fundamentally > unsound. > > On a national scale, I think Thomas Jefferson guessed the optimal > time-constant to be about 20 years :) > > Unless policy-makers are mindful of this stuff *and* don't want it > to happen. Note the conjunction. > --kurt > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Sun Oct 24 17:37:26 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What Kurt Said ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Re-read what you wrote and you'll see that we do make contact on several levels.. Let's talk to a pro... Janos * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sun Oct 24 18:01:35 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Janos, Just because someone can "guess" at a problem, that doesn't mean that the problem relates to SCNA. (It's not an SCN problem if lawyers MIGHT smuggle chocolates to their fat clients in jail.) Since we don't deal with fragile populations, as do the other volunteer agencies cited who use background checks, there is not SCN problem that requires background checks. However, SCNA is hurting badly for volunteers. Rather that putting effort into processes that intrude on potential vols. (which we don't have enough of), lets focus on real and existing issues. THEN worry about the hypothetical ones. Later, Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > > Kurt > the hazard of not acting responsably is loosing the system that we have > built... > Kurt, I know that I have cleared the system....there is little doubt that > all of us will... but if we don't ....we could be considered negligant is > a future action.. > > This is a standard that we will have to impose on ourselves or face the > reality of a dwindling support from our users and corperate supporters. > > The standard is that of outside influence.... and given the nature of our > history we have always been affected by that force. > > Janos > > > > > > Not one genuine hazard or existing safety condition was identified here! > > It's all vague, mushy stuff, about what might possibly happen. It's the > > sort of thing all the Nice People and Ed.D. cush-makers at Columbine > > HS were busy with *before* the shooting, and probably what they are > > busy with right now: counting their toes, verifying their colleagues' > > toe-counts, and making policy. Fat lot of good it did them... > > > > And *fear* as a basis of policy is never assuaged for long, which means > > that the policies intended to assuage that fear lose their efficacy > > (and note most carefully that this happens regardless of whether any > > incidents covered by the policies occur or not!), and the fear comes back, > > in a sort of "relaxation"-type periodicity, giving a cyclic character to > > the process. In electronics, an RC oscillator exhibits these properties > > nicely. So do addictions of various sorts. > > > > Unfortunately, while fear has the properties of accumulation and > > dissipation, the policies they drive are long-lived artifacts, which > > hang around, accreting, over many fear-cycles. So what emerges out of > > all of this is sort of a ratcheting-type pattern that eventually even > > causes the policy-makers to complain (the only element of justice in the > > whole affair, usually long-delayed). And this is why it's fundamentally > > unsound. > > > > On a national scale, I think Thomas Jefferson guessed the optimal > > time-constant to be about 20 years :) > > > > Unless policy-makers are mindful of this stuff *and* don't want it > > to happen. Note the conjunction. > > --kurt > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe scn > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sun Oct 24 18:17:34 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The value of discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Glad you brought this up. Several points. 1. It was a 7-year-old girl. 2. Her mother sat at the neighboring terminal. 3. There were 2 other adults in the class (total = 5) 4. It was in the middle of a libary branch. 5. There were 2 other instructors teaching with me. This doesn't qualify as a delicate situation because the students were not all minors. Also, I did not have exclusive control. (The library staff were there) Also, I did not have sole control. There were two other teachers there. Also, I did not have sole control because it was in the middle of a library. Next, you'll be wanting background checks for SCNA vols. at a general computer fair because a minor might walk through. Not a good use of our efforts, IMO. Later, Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > Rich, > > That 7 year old boy... even with other teachers...was a liability.. > Thank you for citing an example. > > Janos > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sun Oct 24 18:20:57 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 18:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BD: Background Checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Arguing the point is pointless... why not get a legal opinion or two? > > Janos > I assumed Joel already had before starting consideration of this policy. Don't tell me this all was Joel's imagination. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From rockybay at scn.org Sun Oct 24 21:34:29 1999 From: rockybay at scn.org (Malcolm Taran) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 21:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Absence of target populations; background checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun. 24 Oct Janos wrote > That 7 year old boy... even with other teachers...was a liability.. you (Rich) had also written > However, there were 2 other teachers, and 5 students, and it was in a public library. Yes, there exist human predators, there have been as far back as we have history--back before writing. But we are no more under siege than we ever have been; less now 'cause we no longer hide or ignore human predation. I volunteer with the Boy Scouts. I had to submit to the WSP background check formality--but that's national policy. More importantly, they _teach_ adult volunteers _and_boys_ about _awareness_. For adults, for just a little example, _never_ be with a boy or boys alone-- always have another adult present. Awareness and teaching awareness require no ID and no background checks. I submit it is effective as red tape and implicit external authority cannot ever be. Rich wrote > Given our difficulties in recruiting (and keeping) volunteers, we won't > have enough vols. to expand our services... We have that problem right now. > ... Rather that putting effort > into processes that intrude on potential vols. (which we don't have > enough > of), lets focus on real and existing issues. Yes, Janos, we do need to be intelligent, and forthright, about dealing with risk. If an adult teaching a child in public is a liability, our society, values, and our collective mental health are in _serious_ trouble. Rich, Kurt, someone needs to gather some quantitative data. This discussion is getting hysterical--and not just in fun. Malcolm Taran * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From rockybay at scn.org Sun Oct 24 21:37:26 1999 From: rockybay at scn.org (Malcolm Taran) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 21:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BD: Background Checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You wrote > I assumed Joel already had before starting consideration of this policy. We need substantive data. We need an accurate, plain English summary of professional legal advice: (1) analysis of risks, responsibilities, and consequences; and (2) legal opinion what to do Malcolm Taran * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jw4 at scn.org Sun Oct 24 23:40:54 1999 From: jw4 at scn.org (Joel Ware IV) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background Screening Mechanisms Message-ID: The attached info from a Department of Justice publication, written by several lawyers, lists some volunteer screening mechanisms that may be used. At this time, SCNA is not doing all of the "Basic" level items. Since we DO work with children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities, "due diligence" requires that we look into this area. Joel Ware, IV jw4 at scn.org Volunteer Coordinator Member of Governance, HR, Board, ExComm -------------------- Basic Screening Practices o Employment reference checks. o Personal reference checks. o Personal interviews. o Confirmation of education. o Written application. o On-the-job observation. Frequently Used Practices o Local criminal record check. o State criminal record check. o FBI criminal record check. o State central child/dependent adult abuse registry check. o State sex offender registry check. o Nurse�s aide registry record check. o Motor vehicle record check. o Professional disciplinary board background check. Infrequently Used Practices o Alcohol/drug testing. o Psychological testing. o Mental illness/psychiatric history check. o Home visits. from a US Department of Justice publication: Guidelines for the Screening of Persons Working With Children, the Elderly, and Individuals With Disabilities in Need of Support April 1998 Authors: Noy S. Davis, Esq., Project Director Kathi L. Grasso, Esq. American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law with Kimberly Dennis, M.P.H. Susan J. Wells, Ph.D. Marsha B. Liss, Esq. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jw4 at scn.org Sun Oct 24 23:41:37 1999 From: jw4 at scn.org (Joel Ware IV) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Risk Management and Criminal Background Checks - one point of view. Message-ID: NOTE that criminal background checks are one tool of many in the general area of volunteer screening procedures. They are used by a large and growing number of volunteer agencies. Here is one nationally-recognized point-of-view article on the use of criminal background checks. His point is expressed below: "The very least an organization can do as part of risk management in its hiring process, is make certain that their volunteers and employees who provide services to children, the elderly or the disabled, do not have relevant criminal records." TEXT: Posted by Jody Gorran on December 08, 1998 at 20:33:55: Jody A. Gorran, Programs Director National Foundation To Prevent Child Sexual Abuse Risk Management and Negligent Hiring under New Federal Law Impacts Insurers and Insureds Since October 9, 1998, when the Volunteers for Children Act, was signed into law by President Clinton as Public Law 105-251 and amended the National Child Protection Act of 1993, if a volunteer or employee of an organization sexually molests a child in his care and if it can be shown that this volunteer or employee had been previously convicted somewhere in the United States of a relevant crime, the organization may be held liable under the legal theory of negligent hiring. Under the law, a �Qualified Entity� which is any business or organization, whether public, private, for-profit, not-for-profit or voluntary, that provides care, treatment, education, training, instruction, supervision or recreation to children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, now has the ability, under the National Child Protection Act of 1993 as amended by the Volunteers for Children Act, to request fingerprint-based national criminal history background checks through the FBI of their volunteers and employees. Prior to October 9, 1998, these �Qualified Entities� did not have the legal ability to request these fingerprint-based national criminal history background checks through the FBI. We want every effected organization, particularly those who deal with children, to immediately start requesting them. If a current or potential volunteer or employee has a relevant criminal history, he must be prevented from having access to children, the elderly or the disabled through these organizations. Such a person must not be placed in a position where he may easily victimize someone again. Courts are increasingly holding employers liable for the violent acts of an employee on grounds of negligent hiring. In making such a finding, a court must conclude that the employer violated its duty of care in the hiring of the employee or volunteer. Actions against an employer for negligent hiring will turn on the alleged breach of the duty of care owed by the employer to the injured party. There is a duty of care whenever there is a foreseeable risk of injury to others arising from the failure to take the necessary steps to prevent such injury. Because these �Qualified Entities� provide care to children, the elderly and the disabled, their duty of care is quite high because these are the most vulnerable groups in our society. The very least an organization can do as part of risk management in its hiring process, is make certain that their volunteers and employees who provide services to children, the elderly or the disabled, do not have relevant criminal records. Since October 9, 1998, these �Qualified Entities� have the lawful ability to request fingerprint-based national criminal history background checks. ... Food for thought --- -Joel. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jmabel at saltmine.com Mon Oct 25 09:03:04 1999 From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 09:03:04 -0700 Subject: Background Checks Message-ID: <01BF1EC7.BFB971F0.jmabel@saltmine.com> Seems to me that while there may be particular roles in SCN that require background checks (our treasurer probably should be bonded, for example), there's something being proposed here that's not too far from the attitude that runs random drug tests, one I would not expect to encounter in SCN. I believe I have nothing to hide about my life, but I don't invite the police to come investigate me. I turned down a job once because it required a security clearance that I would almost certainly have passed. I won't work for companies that drug-test their employees, even though I myself haven't done an illegal drug in a damned long time. Maybe anyone who might routinely work with children should get about the same degree of background check normally given by a daycare, but I think it is absurd to think in liability terms about the fact that someone might happen to be alone with a child on some brief occasion. I think it's a legitimate concern to be worried about molesters seeking positions that give them many opportunities to molest, but it's ridiculous to screen everyone who ever might accidentally be alone with a minor. Do you people think there should be a screening like this to work in a 7-11 or to attend a gas station or small store? How about living alone in a house? These things leave far more chance of being alone with a minor than any SCN volunteering I know of. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Mabel 206-284-7511 "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." L. Frank Baum * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jw4 at scn.org Mon Oct 25 10:41:17 1999 From: jw4 at scn.org (Joel Ware IV) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BBC publishes 'digital divide' manifesto (fwd) Message-ID: Here's a great-looking manifesto, published by the BBC. " Every citizen, regardless of their economic circumstances, should be able to share the benefits of the Information Age ..." Read on for more detail -- there's a Web site for comments. Joel Ware, IV jw4 at scn.org Member of Governance, HR, Board, ExComm ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:32:16 +0100 From: David Wilcox To: afcn-members at lists.colorado.edu Subject: BBC publishes 'digital divide' manifesto Hi all I thought you might be interested that the BBC is supporting community networking by today publishing a draft local online communities manifesto with a discussion forum for comments.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise The manifesto draws on work by UK Communities Online and Partnerships Online. It is not in any way "owned" by the BBC, but offered as an 'open source' document for comment and development. The full version, with background, is at http://www.partnerships.org.uk/cyber The BBC is also staging a live online chat with the UK e-Minister tonight http://www.bbc.co.uk/liveanddirect I hope you'll spare a moment to visit the forum and post a message. We're rather pleased to get such a public notice board - BBC Online is our no 1 Internet site in the UK. Regards David Introduction and summary from A draft manifesto for local communities at http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/webwise/communities/manifesto.shtml ------------------------------------------------------------------------ How can we shape development of the internet so that it benefits all citizens - and so avoid a 'digital divide' between those who are connected, and those who aren't? To start the debate, a group of community networking experts have drafted an 'open manifesto' which will be developed through public discussion. The manifesto will then be presented to the UK Government Policy Action Team due to report to Prime Minister Tony Blair later this year. If you have comments on the manifesto, or would like to add your ideas, post a message to the Webwise Manifesto message board. The initial suggestions for the manifesto are: 1 Every citizen, regardless of their economic circumstances, should be able to share the benefits of the Information Age - including better communications, greater participation, electronic life long learning, and e-commerce. To achieve this they should have access to local community technology centres, plus public online forums and services to create an online community. The centres will provide technical support and help 'on the ground', the forums will be 'virtual spaces' for online communities related to localities. 2 Centres and online communities should be easy to find - signposted locally, and through a national gateway. 3 Public support should be available, particularly in low-income neighbourhoods, where the market is unlikely to provide facilities on a sustainable basis without public funding. 4 Development of centres and online communities should be piloted through pathfinder projects, with community participation. 5 There should be a network and support for the local champions and partnerships who will develop the centres and online communities. 6 A virtual resource centre should be developed to provide sources of advice for local champions and partnerships, and a neutral space online for discussion of the development of centres and online communities. -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ David Wilcox, david at communities.org.uk. +44 (0) 1273 677377 Partnerships Online http://www.partnerships.org.uk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From mtg at alstom.esca.com Mon Oct 25 10:43:20 1999 From: mtg at alstom.esca.com (Tim Gallagher) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > Kurt, I know that I have cleared the system....there is little doubt that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Am I missing something here? Do current scn veterans automatically assume they will not be subject to the same scrutiny they propose for others? For folks who control the money and who have direct contact with fragile groups it seems like checks are a reality of our modern world. -- tg * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From kurt at grogatch.seaslug.org Mon Oct 25 12:13:36 1999 From: kurt at grogatch.seaslug.org (Kurt Cockrum) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 12:13:36 -0700 Subject: Background checks Message-ID: <199910251913.MAA13383@grogatch.seaslug.org> In-Reply-To: Rod said: >[...] If anything, it's more likely that the >SCNA board would politely tell the phone sponsors to go jump in >the nearest lake if they complained about SCN's policies. And as >far as I know, the members of the SCN Association aren't in any >hurry to elect anyone who has the opposite view. Hear, hear! Music to my ears! --kurt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jdean at oz.net Mon Oct 25 09:40:35 1999 From: jdean at oz.net (jdean) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:40:35 -0000 Subject: Background checks References: <199910251913.MAA13383@grogatch.seaslug.org> Message-ID: <004201bf1f07$abc352c0$0a0101c1@john> A question for Joel (mostly), et. al.: Is the discussion missing the point about the law and the standard to which courts are holding organizations? The points being discussed about the desirability of a policy requiring checks, and the side issue (that seems to have consensus is a side issue) about potential impact on sponsors, are not really germain. I only see one area in which SCNA policy is free to operate; and that is to establish the level of risk that the organization will accept. I think I heard here that it does not matter what kind of organization we are or what kind of events we participate in. It just matters if someone (maybe only someone in a protected population) suffers abuse at the hands of an employee or volunteer while that person is acting as an employee or volunteer. If that happens our only defense, and our only hope to avoid legal sanction, is to show that we excercised due diligence. For instance, if we allow minors accounts on SCN, and we have volunteer staff that interacts with acount holders, we could be liable if someone used their position to "entice" a minor to meet somewhere and abuse ensued. Board policy can just ignore risk and hope nothing ever happens. Board policy can identify certain job categories as potentially having user contact with vulnerable / protected users, and require some type of check for persons doing those jobs. ( Or, anything else you can imagine... ) The discussion ought to focus, in my opinion, on acceptable risk. There is near unanimity on the point that IS being discussed... namely that checks are odious or worse... so it seems to me that that principle should just be accepted as an organizational 'given', and we should move on to the point of determining how little we can do and still have acceptable risk. In proposing this I do not rule out that we could decide that there is acceptable risk in requiring no checks of anyone. I also do not rule out that we might find that that was not the case; and that some categories of volunteers ought to require some checks. Apologies if this sounded 'preachy", I thought a 'process check' might be useful. Regards John Dean * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Mon Oct 25 17:18:06 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The system that is the state approved bacground check is accepted for almost all situations of this type. Anyone who has completed this check can request a "certificate/letter" stating that they have been cleared. This will save scn a lot of money... Janos On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Tim Gallagher wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > > > Kurt, I know that I have cleared the system....there is little doubt that > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Am I missing something here? Do current scn veterans automatically assume > they will not be subject to the same scrutiny they propose for others? > > For folks who control the money and who have direct contact with fragile > groups it seems like checks are a reality of our modern world. > > -- tg > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Mon Oct 25 20:43:29 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Absence of target populations; background checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The point is, anyone (I won't say "idiot") pushing for this new effort (background checks) has the burden of showing specifically (not alleging) that SCN fits the requirements. >From the quotes I've seen, there is the need for an entity to have exclusive or sole control over the target populations. SCNA doesn't fit that. So, whoever wants background checks, get us quotes showing that SCN fits the picture (and name the relevant SCN tasks) Until then, discussion is getting us no----where. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Malcolm Taran wrote: > On Sun. 24 Oct > Janos wrote > > That 7 year old boy... even with other teachers...was a liability.. > > you (Rich) had also written > > However, there were 2 other teachers, and 5 students, and it was in a > public library. > > Yes, there exist human predators, there have been as far > back as we have history--back before writing. But we > are no more under siege than we ever have been; less now > 'cause we no longer hide or ignore human predation. > > I volunteer with the Boy Scouts. I had to submit to the > WSP background check formality--but that's national > policy. More importantly, they _teach_ adult volunteers > _and_boys_ about _awareness_. For adults, for just a > little example, _never_ be with a boy or boys alone-- > always have another adult present. Awareness and > teaching awareness require no ID and no background > checks. I submit it is effective as red tape and > implicit external authority cannot ever be. > > Rich wrote > > Given our difficulties in recruiting (and keeping) volunteers, we won't > > have enough vols. to expand our services... > > We have that problem right now. > > > ... Rather that putting effort > > into processes that intrude on potential vols. (which we don't have > > enough > > of), lets focus on real and existing issues. > > Yes, Janos, we do need to be intelligent, and > forthright, about dealing with risk. > > If an adult teaching a child in public is a > liability, our society, values, and our collective > mental health are in _serious_ trouble. > > Rich, Kurt, someone needs to gather some > quantitative data. This discussion is getting > hysterical--and not just in fun. > > Malcolm Taran > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Mon Oct 25 20:47:02 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background Screening Mechanisms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Joel? Hello? Hello? You are jumping the gun. First quote to us the wording that shows that SCN is in the category that NEEDS to have background checks. Giving us info on HOW TO DO CHECKS is premature. You haven't shown (you've just alleged) that we even need background checks. Next you'll be sending us plans for fallout shelters. .... Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Joel Ware IV wrote: > The attached info from a Department of Justice publication, written by > several lawyers, lists some volunteer screening mechanisms that may be > used. At this time, SCNA is not doing all of the "Basic" level items. > Since we DO work with children, the elderly, and individuals with > disabilities, "due diligence" requires that we look into this area. > > > Joel Ware, IV jw4 at scn.org > Volunteer Coordinator > Member of Governance, HR, Board, ExComm > > -------------------- > > Basic Screening Practices > o Employment reference checks. > o Personal reference checks. > o Personal interviews. > o Confirmation of education. > o Written application. > o On-the-job observation. > > Frequently Used Practices > o Local criminal record check. > o State criminal record check. > o FBI criminal record check. > o State central child/dependent adult abuse registry check. > o State sex offender registry check. > o Nurse�s aide registry record check. > o Motor vehicle record check. > o Professional disciplinary board background check. > > Infrequently Used Practices > o Alcohol/drug testing. > o Psychological testing. > o Mental illness/psychiatric history check. > o Home visits. > > from a US Department of Justice publication: > Guidelines for the Screening of Persons > Working With Children, the Elderly, > and Individuals With Disabilities > in Need of Support > April 1998 > > Authors: > Noy S. Davis, Esq., Project Director > Kathi L. Grasso, Esq. > American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law > with > Kimberly Dennis, M.P.H. > Susan J. Wells, Ph.D. > Marsha B. Liss, Esq. > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Mon Oct 25 20:50:47 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Risk Management and Criminal Background Checks - one point of view. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yooo hooo! Anybody home? SCN(A) does not "... provide services to children, the elderly or the disabled, > do not have relevant criminal records." Unless there is now a "Children, Elderly, and Disabled" committee I have not yet heard about. Joel, when does it meet? WHERE does it meet? What services does it provide? I'm dying to hear the details. (I might volunteer.....) Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Joel Ware IV wrote: > NOTE that criminal background checks are one tool of many in the > general area of volunteer screening procedures. They are used by > a large and growing number of volunteer agencies. > > Here is one nationally-recognized point-of-view article on the > use of criminal background checks. His point is expressed below: > "The very least an organization can do as part of risk management in > its hiring process, is make certain that their volunteers and > employees who provide services to children, the elderly or the disabled, > do not have relevant criminal records." > > TEXT: > Posted by Jody Gorran on December 08, 1998 at 20:33:55: > > Jody A. Gorran, Programs Director > National Foundation To Prevent Child Sexual Abuse > > Risk Management and Negligent Hiring under New Federal Law Impacts > Insurers and Insureds > > Since October 9, 1998, when the Volunteers for Children Act, was signed > into law by President Clinton as Public Law 105-251 and amended the > National Child Protection Act of 1993, if a volunteer or employee of an > organization sexually molests a child in his care and if it can be shown > that this volunteer or employee had been previously convicted somewhere in > the United States of a relevant crime, the organization may be held liable > under the legal theory of negligent hiring. > > Under the law, a �Qualified Entity� which is any business or organization, > whether public, private, for-profit, not-for-profit or voluntary, that > provides care, treatment, education, training, instruction, supervision or > recreation to children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, now > has the ability, under the National Child Protection Act of 1993 as > amended by the Volunteers for Children Act, to request fingerprint-based > national criminal history background checks through the FBI of their > volunteers and employees. > > Prior to October 9, 1998, these �Qualified Entities� did not have the > legal ability to request these fingerprint-based national criminal history > background checks through the FBI. We want every effected organization, > particularly those who deal with children, to immediately start requesting > them. If a current or potential volunteer or employee has a relevant > criminal history, he must be prevented from having access to children, the > elderly or the disabled through these organizations. Such a person must > not be placed in a position where he may easily victimize someone again. > > Courts are increasingly holding employers liable for the violent acts of > an employee on grounds of negligent hiring. In making such a finding, a > court must conclude that the employer violated its duty of care in the > hiring of the employee or volunteer. Actions against an employer for > negligent hiring will turn on the alleged breach of the duty of care owed > by the employer to the injured party. There is a duty of care whenever > there is a foreseeable risk of injury to others arising from the failure > to take the necessary steps to prevent such injury. Because these > �Qualified Entities� provide care to children, the elderly and the > disabled, their duty of care is quite high because these are the most > vulnerable groups in our society. > > The very least an organization can do as part of risk management in its > hiring process, is make certain that their volunteers and employees who > provide services to children, the elderly or the disabled, do not have > relevant criminal records. Since October 9, 1998, these �Qualified > Entities� have the lawful ability to request fingerprint-based national > criminal history background checks. > ... > > Food for thought --- > > -Joel. > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Mon Oct 25 20:54:52 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim, SCN(A) does handle significant amounts of money. The treasurer does. THAT position MIGHT require thoroughness in selection. HOWEVER, SCN(A) does not have any programs that exercise control over chilldren or fragile populations. NONE. So don't let the rumors lead you to believe that this is any sort of basis for background checks. (Though, maybe there is some mental instability loose in the broader membership. But even then, we can't exercise any control over it, as events repeatedly show.) Later, Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Tim Gallagher wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > > > Kurt, I know that I have cleared the system....there is little doubt that > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Am I missing something here? Do current scn veterans automatically assume > they will not be subject to the same scrutiny they propose for others? > > For folks who control the money and who have direct contact with fragile > groups it seems like checks are a reality of our modern world. > > -- tg > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Mon Oct 25 21:09:52 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:09:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background checks In-Reply-To: <004201bf1f07$abc352c0$0a0101c1@john> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, jdean wrote: (snip) I think I > heard here that it does not matter what kind of organization we are or what > kind of events we participate in. It just matters if someone (maybe only > someone in a protected population) suffers abuse at the hands of an employee > or volunteer while that person is acting as an employee or volunteer. If > that happens our only defense, and our only hope to avoid legal sanction, is > to show that we excercised due diligence. Several problems here. First "I think I heard...." Let's track these sources down and get the quotes and the source name. If it turns out that SCN is not the sort of org. that needs background checks, then (1) we are just adding a needless effort (and we don't have enough people to do our priority tasks) to our load, and (2) we are putting an additional barrier for prospective volunteers. So let's get the indisputable criteria. Second Again, we need clear authority to show that if an SCN vol punches out someone, that makes SCN liable. Third Presumably, the purpose of the insurance the board is shopping for is to cover the 1 in 10,000,000 chance that an SCN vol will step significantly out of line. Otherwise, what is the insurance for? But, again, what is our purpose and are we getting to it? At this point, we don't have enough volunteers to create a hazard. Later, Rich * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Mon Oct 25 21:11:00 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background checks In-Reply-To: <004201bf1f07$abc352c0$0a0101c1@john> Message-ID: Or, put simply, I think our current very low risk is clearly way below the acceptable threshhold. (i.e., it is acceptable) Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, jdean wrote: > A question for Joel (mostly), et. al.: > > Is the discussion missing the point about the law and the standard to which > courts are holding organizations? The points being discussed about the > desirability of a policy requiring checks, and the side issue (that seems to > have consensus is a side issue) about potential impact on sponsors, are not > really germain. > > I only see one area in which SCNA policy is free to operate; and that is to > establish the level of risk that the organization will accept. I think I > heard here that it does not matter what kind of organization we are or what > kind of events we participate in. It just matters if someone (maybe only > someone in a protected population) suffers abuse at the hands of an employee > or volunteer while that person is acting as an employee or volunteer. If > that happens our only defense, and our only hope to avoid legal sanction, is > to show that we excercised due diligence. > > For instance, if we allow minors accounts on SCN, and we have volunteer > staff that interacts with acount holders, we could be liable if someone used > their position to "entice" a minor to meet somewhere and abuse ensued. > > Board policy can just ignore risk and hope nothing ever happens. Board > policy can identify certain job categories as potentially having user > contact with vulnerable / protected users, and require some type of check > for persons doing those jobs. ( Or, anything else you can imagine... ) > > The discussion ought to focus, in my opinion, on acceptable risk. There is > near unanimity on the point that IS being discussed... namely that checks > are odious or worse... so it seems to me that that principle should just be > accepted as an organizational 'given', and we should move on to the point of > determining how little we can do and still have acceptable risk. In > proposing this I do not rule out that we could decide that there is > acceptable risk in requiring no checks of anyone. I also do not rule out > that we might find that that was not the case; and that some categories of > volunteers ought to require some checks. > > Apologies if this sounded 'preachy", I thought a 'process check' might be > useful. > > Regards > > John Dean > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jdean at oz.net Tue Oct 26 11:28:04 1999 From: jdean at oz.net (jdean) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 18:28:04 -0000 Subject: Background checks References: Message-ID: <002901bf1fdf$d8c7bd00$0a0101c1@john> Rich, et. al. The point you raise about insurance seems significant. Appropriate insurance is one way to mitigate risk. Whomever is providing our legal advice should be asked if insurance can be obtained that will provide coverage of this risk. By the way, my "I think I heard" statement was referring to what was asserted in this thread in prior messages... I meant to convey that my understanding of the technical points was as I stated, but that I did not claim to have perfect understanding. I did not mean to raise the spectre of speculation... sorry if that was unclear. Another impression I am getting from this discussion, and I would like to have an expert elaborate on this for our benefit, is that there does not seem to be a "direct" rule of law to comply with. That is, a rule in the form of "If you have exclusive control of minor children, then you must...". Or some other such direct statement in the law. Instead I believe we are told (in this discussion thread) that the law is "indirect" or "after the fact" in that it says "If this bad result occurs, then we will examine what you did to try to prevent it. If you did not do enough (in our opinion) we will penalize you severely", or something like that. Now I do not condone this kind of thing in the law, I just think that is what Joel told us about what IS the law. If that is the case then we cannot claim immunity because we had no activities of a particular kind, we have to assess the risk ourselves and act accordingly. You clearly believe the risk is minimal. I have heard one or two others who do not believe the risk is minimal. In any event, thank you for raising the point about insurance, That clearly needs to be considered. Regards John Dean ----- Original Message ----- From: Rich Littleton To: jdean Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 4:11 AM Subject: Re: Background checks > > Or, put simply, I think our current very low risk is clearly way below the > acceptable threshhold. (i.e., it is acceptable) > > Rich > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** > > On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, jdean wrote: > > > A question for Joel (mostly), et. al.: > > > > Is the discussion missing the point about the law and the standard to which > > courts are holding organizations? The points being discussed about the > > desirability of a policy requiring checks, and the side issue (that seems to > > have consensus is a side issue) about potential impact on sponsors, are not > > really germain. > > > > I only see one area in which SCNA policy is free to operate; and that is to > > establish the level of risk that the organization will accept. I think I > > heard here that it does not matter what kind of organization we are or what > > kind of events we participate in. It just matters if someone (maybe only > > someone in a protected population) suffers abuse at the hands of an employee > > or volunteer while that person is acting as an employee or volunteer. If > > that happens our only defense, and our only hope to avoid legal sanction, is > > to show that we excercised due diligence. > > > > For instance, if we allow minors accounts on SCN, and we have volunteer > > staff that interacts with acount holders, we could be liable if someone used > > their position to "entice" a minor to meet somewhere and abuse ensued. > > > > Board policy can just ignore risk and hope nothing ever happens. Board > > policy can identify certain job categories as potentially having user > > contact with vulnerable / protected users, and require some type of check > > for persons doing those jobs. ( Or, anything else you can imagine... ) > > > > The discussion ought to focus, in my opinion, on acceptable risk. There is > > near unanimity on the point that IS being discussed... namely that checks > > are odious or worse... so it seems to me that that principle should just be > > accepted as an organizational 'given', and we should move on to the point of > > determining how little we can do and still have acceptable risk. In > > proposing this I do not rule out that we could decide that there is > > acceptable risk in requiring no checks of anyone. I also do not rule out > > that we might find that that was not the case; and that some categories of > > volunteers ought to require some checks. > > > > Apologies if this sounded 'preachy", I thought a 'process check' might be > > useful. > > > > Regards > > > > John Dean > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe scn > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Tue Oct 26 21:33:14 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background Screening Mechanisms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rich, Let's stay civil, This type of comment does not lend itself to strengthing your point of view. You make valid comments and then shatter credibility in my eyes... Let's stick to the rebuttle of the topic and not the person. J On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Rich Littleton wrote: > > Joel? > > Hello? Hello? > > You are jumping the gun. > > First quote to us the wording that shows that SCN is in the category that > NEEDS to have background checks. Giving us info on HOW TO DO CHECKS is > premature. You haven't shown (you've just alleged) that we even need > background checks. > > Next you'll be sending us plans for fallout shelters. .... > > Rich > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** > > On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Joel Ware IV wrote: > > > The attached info from a Department of Justice publication, written by > > several lawyers, lists some volunteer screening mechanisms that may be > > used. At this time, SCNA is not doing all of the "Basic" level items. > > Since we DO work with children, the elderly, and individuals with > > disabilities, "due diligence" requires that we look into this area. > > > > > > Joel Ware, IV jw4 at scn.org > > Volunteer Coordinator > > Member of Governance, HR, Board, ExComm > > > > -------------------- > > > > Basic Screening Practices > > o Employment reference checks. > > o Personal reference checks. > > o Personal interviews. > > o Confirmation of education. > > o Written application. > > o On-the-job observation. > > > > Frequently Used Practices > > o Local criminal record check. > > o State criminal record check. > > o FBI criminal record check. > > o State central child/dependent adult abuse registry check. > > o State sex offender registry check. > > o Nurse�s aide registry record check. > > o Motor vehicle record check. > > o Professional disciplinary board background check. > > > > Infrequently Used Practices > > o Alcohol/drug testing. > > o Psychological testing. > > o Mental illness/psychiatric history check. > > o Home visits. > > > > from a US Department of Justice publication: > > Guidelines for the Screening of Persons > > Working With Children, the Elderly, > > and Individuals With Disabilities > > in Need of Support > > April 1998 > > > > Authors: > > Noy S. Davis, Esq., Project Director > > Kathi L. Grasso, Esq. > > American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law > > with > > Kimberly Dennis, M.P.H. > > Susan J. Wells, Ph.D. > > Marsha B. Liss, Esq. > > > > > > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe scn > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From kurt Tue Oct 26 22:24:56 1999 From: kurt (Kurt Cockrum) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Origin of the "background checks?" thread (big) Message-ID: <199910270524.WAA29049@scn.org> References: <199910221840.LAA01108 at scn.org>, <199910212047.NAA16931 at scn.org> This is an attempt to respond for Melissa's recent call to port the back-ground-check thread to the list. I digestified it so people can get some background and a sense of what ground has been covered. All the principals have agreed to have this posted. You could regard them as the coauthors of the collective work. When/if anybody replies to this *please* *do* *not* let your mailer append this to your posting, or you will surely be reincarnated as an intestinal parasite! It all seems to begin begin with my message declassifying the thread on the hardware list because of topic-drift, and questioning the proposed policy. The post it responds to contains sensitive material and so is not included. Although it wouldn't bother me much if if somebody else divulged it :) I have edited out all the .sig-stuff superfluous to ID'ing the actors, and all the "you said" stuff, where it isn't part of a point-by-point-style argument (typically the stuff appended as a block to the body of the message, prefixed with ">"). What remains is, I hope, a reasonably accurate transcription of the conversation up to now. I think the rest of the coauthors agree with this. Joel has reminded us of a policy that apparently exists that seems to prohibit e-mail posted to the list from being forwarded outside the list (it's in this digest, in fact; see ). I think the intent of this policy is to restrict the scope of distribution of confidential or sensitive technical or personal information rather than comments and opinions on overall SCN policy that occur within the list. In fact, the post I respond to that started this thing falls under that sensitive category. So some political opinions expressed on the hardware list that I think are parts of the thread are being posted in this digest, since they reveal no confidential information, and could be posted with no editing of their content. It probably won't hurt to point out that the dual objectives of free political discussion and technical confidentiality are preserved -- which does not violate any policy, but helps fulfil our mission. Without further ado... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kurt Cockrum Message-Id: <199910181853.LAA11840 at scn.org> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:53:51 -0700 (PDT) To: be718 at scn.org, hardware at scn.org, jw4 at scn.org Subject: was CONFIDENTIAL in re OPS: ... But we aren't talking about *that* one anymore, so the CONFIDENTIAL tag should go away. Accuracy in classification :) and I think that topic proper is done with anyway... Joel said: >THE FUTURE: >The HR committee is working on the issue of background checks, which >are now being recommended for all volunteers who work with seniors, >children, the disabled, and other fragile populations. Jeez, this is really going over the top. What is being looked for here? > Note that this >may include almost every SCN volunteer involved in teaching, help desk, >registration, system administration, and outreach. This will also require >that we maintain a confidential file on each volunteer. Oh, brother. You are setting yourself up for all sorts of future trouble, I see. In order to avoid one kind of trouble, you are inviting another kind. And you are going to plow on ahead because you "have to do *something*!". That's what I see operating here. While the goals might be worthwhile, the method seems counterproductive and almost guaranteed to land you in court over something, very likely a disgruntled volunteer disputing the truth of an action that SCN did. In other words, it seems likely to produce the results you'd most like to avoid. It's like a bump in a rug. Step on it, and it just shifts position. So stepping on the bump is the wrong approach, and so in the same way is this. I realize that this doesn't point to a solution but instead just points out defects in the proposed plan. But it seems to me that if you policy-makers knew what you were doing instead of just *thinking* you know what you're doing, you wouldn't come up with plans that have the things I criticize, in such great abundance. It looks like to me that you need to iterate some more on the plan. Maybe you all do know what you are doing and I just can't recognize it. But I keep seeing the little things popping up that elsewhere, seem to have resulted, by gradual accretion, in the Pacifica Network getting into the sorry state it's currently in. People involved in that project were sounding alarms for years to no avail. >I am working with all committees / team leaders on this issue, to >ensure that we have appropriate criteria and guidelines in place. Confidentiality from outsiders and people without a need-to-know is important. I hope this doesn't mutate into the sort of thing where action is taken against people based on "confidential" information that that person can't review. It also should not become a catch-basin for unsubstantiated allegations and rumors, effectively extending their lifetime. Hint to the designers of this system: learn the concepts of "life-cycle" and "half-life" (the operative factor might be something other than "half"; I'm referring to a decaying concept, where a piece of information isn't just a hunk of bytes but has attributes such as timeliness and relevance, that vary over time). Now *this* is where strong process is needed, because the concepts are more abstract than just squirreling away information, and harder to do effectively. Another hint to system designers: having secrets is bad policy. It should be minimized. Jeez, I hope we don't make people start posting bonds! And I hope people keep a sense of proportion about this. --kurt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:54:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Seattle Astronomical Society To: hardware at scn.org Subject: Re: was CONFIDENTIAL in re OPS: ... In-Reply-To: <199910181853.LAA11840 at scn.org> Message-ID: I tend to agree with Kurt - when I read through Joel's message, I thought it sounded like a LOT more Big-Brother-watching-you than is needed in an organization like SCN. Granted, we don't want to turn anyone who shows up loose with the keys to the system, but this sort of proposal really seems way excessive. Let's limit Big Brother's presence on SCN to the CGI program that keeps track of system operations! Ken Applegate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:30:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Chanh Ong To: hardware at scn.org Subject: Re: was CONFIDENTIAL in re OPS: einstein In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I agree with both Kurt and Ken. People come to volunteer at SCN because they have something to offer and to give. In return, their privacy get violated. SUCH A DEAL!! ^ Chanh Ong (SCN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:10:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Rich Littleton To: Kurt Cockrum cc: hardware at scn.org, volunteers at scn.org, volunteer at scn.org, Seattle Community Network Association , jw4 at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org Subject: What the ? ....... In-Reply-To: <199910181853.LAA11840 at scn.org> Message-ID: Background checks? What next, strip searches for e-mail students? Then AIDS tests for any volunteers who might sneeze on someone. After that, fingerprinting. Pretty soon, we're looking at policies that would make the CIA envious. Any background check policy that exempts some SCNA members (e.g. board members) is going to (a) alienate all those as-yet-untapped volunteers we keep predicting are going to sign up so SCNA can get in gear; and (b) make us vulnerable as the dickens to a lawsuit. Oooooooeeeeee! Suggestion. Before we start organizing like we are a subdivision of IBM doing military research on weapons of mass distruction, why don't we start focussing on the community, esp. our e-mail. * We are down to 6 or 7 active volunteers. We could use more. * Hardware is strapped too. * We are short enough people to run the I.P. part of SCN. * Our board is running below capacity. Why are we using all this effort to (1) restrict communication inside SCNA, (2) tighten requirments for e-mail students, (3) tighten up security policy, (4) turn a volunteer organization into a severely vertical and hierarchical organization? Let's get volunteers. Let's treat them like friends, not enemies. Let's communicate with them, not just pass rules controlling them. You old timers. Is this how you saw SCN developing? Shudder, Rich ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 23:10:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Joel Ware IV To: hardware at scn.org Subject: OPS: Background Checks In-Reply-To: <199910181853.LAA11840 at scn.org> Message-ID: Dear Kurt, and Ken, THANK YOU for your thoughtful missives on this subject. When I say that background checks are "now being recommended" for specific categories of volunteer positions, I mean that is the advice that we SCN have received from our consultant, Nan Hawthorne, and have heard widely endorsed within the community of folks who manage volunteers for a living. They do so based upon presumably competent legal advice. We need to work on this issue, and we are, as I stated above. And IF and when we do decide to do something, it will be evenly applied to all, new and old. Regards, Joel Ware, IV SCNA Volunteer Coordinator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 12:58:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Kurt Cockrum Message-Id: <199910191958.MAA05966 at scn.org> To: be718 at scn.org, hardware at scn.org, jw4 at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org, scna at scn.org, volunteer at scn.org, volunteers at scn.org Subject: OPS: onerous volunteer screening requirements References: <199910181853.LAA11840 at scn.org>, , , Joel said: >[...] >When I say that background checks are "now being recommended" for specific >categories of volunteer positions, I mean that is the advice that we SCN >have received from our consultant, Nan Hawthorne, and have heard widely >endorsed within the community of folks who manage volunteers for a living. Be that as it may, is Nan operating within any boundaries or have we handed *her* the store? *Do* you people on excomm, scna-board and governance and the like have any critical faculties or are you just taking in, wide-eyed, all that she says? We presumably are all supposed to trust you but I wonder what road you are leading us down. I thot Nan was a volunteer. Am I wrong? Do people ask *her* the reasoning behind her recommendations the way it happens on say the hardware list (not that I think that's bad; quite the opposite -- it's an excellent reality-check)? Is she able to cope with challenges and debate the way people do on this list or does that put you in danger of losing her services? (if so you are already in trouble, because you are *stuck* in the same sort of crucial dependency pattern that *we* are trying to work on here in the hardware list -- and it looks like we are way ahead of you, in fact -- Will you require assistance once we get our policies working? :) >They do so based upon presumably competent legal advice. It's one thing to get "competent legal advice" from somebody who's solidly behind the SCN effort and is on the same page, whether they are a volunteer or we have to pay them. It's quite another to take generic one-size-fits-all advice out of a cookbook "Legal Handbook for Nonprofits" written by a "presumably competent" lawyer with a CYA worldview. We deserve better than that. Is this not agreed? It's an area where legal world-view counts *strongly*, as much as "legal competence" which should only be a *minimal* requirement. Rich said: >You old timers. Is this how you saw SCN developing? Nope. Not me. Joel said: >[...] We need to work >on this issue, and we are, as I stated above. And IF and when we do decide >to do something, it will be evenly applied to all, new and old. Well, I'm not drinking any Kool-ade. Or taking any pee-tests. So there! :) --kurt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <003501bf1a6f$aa331630$078cc5ce at thurman.com> From: "Scot Harkins on SCN.org" To: , , , , , , References: Subject: OPS: Re: Background Checks Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:22:20 -0700 Now that Kurt is cross-posting lists, I'll expand my questions and comments, too. I have retained the previous content for partial background. I think the question becomes how closely which volunteer works with a particular person or group, such that we need to have background checks. There are volunteers (not limited to SCN in this point) who work very closely and for long periods of time in sensitive settings, where they may be able to abuse their responsibilities. Such places would be group homes, shelters, schools, and so on. Volunteers in such settings must be checked for at least legal reasons, if not (more importantly) for safety reasons. The organizations who take them on are responsible for conducting those investigations and keeping them on file, confidential, and current. What's the typical exposure of our volunteer staff to fragile populations? What's the expected scope of such background checks; i.e. criminal searches, credit, medical? What's the scope of volunteers affected; i.e. operations, teaching volunteers, IP's? What are the recommended criteria in order to pass the checks? What's the expected cost of conducting the investigation and retaining the confidential information? How will the investigation be conducted, and by whom? How and where will the information be stored, and who will have access to it, and for what reasons? Will the volunteer be notified when and if that information is viewed after the initial investigation? Beyond that, what are our real risks and exposures with our current volunteer process? Have we had incidents that have sparked the discussion? Have we had suspicions? Are we (SCNA) being specifically asked about the background of our volunteers, such that we have become aware of the need? The bottom line for many people will be: "can I volunteer in any meaningful way without needing a background investigation?" Perhaps we are looking at a Special Needs Volunteer Group, members of which need to pass muster, and who will then provide volunteer services to special needs groups. Remember that we are essentially an ISP, non-profit and primarily reliant on volunteers. We provide educational services as a benefit to our user community. We are not a central provider of care or assistance to specific groups. Our educational services are an adjunct to our function as an ISP. If we are specifically concerned about specific groups of users, then we might consider addressing that need separately from our general processes. Scot ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:39:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Chanh Ong To: hardware at scn.org cc: be718 at scn.org, jw4 at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org, scna at scn.org, volunteer at scn.org, volunteers at scn.org Subject: Re: OPS: onerous volunteer screening requirements In-Reply-To: <199910191958.MAA05966 at scn.org> Message-ID: Back ground check should be disclosed to all volunteers so that let them decide if they want to subject to this hasle so not. They volunteer to come to help SCN. They did not get hire to work here. ^ Chanh Ong (SCN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <19991019221014.19784.rocketmail at web112.yahoomail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:10:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Marc Russell Subject: Re: OPS: onerous volunteer screening requirements To: hardware at scn.org Kurt, I believe you've summarized all the necessary points a background check should cover, at least for people operating within the context of the OPS group. :) --- Kurt Cockrum wrote: [snip] > operating within any boundaries or have we > handed [snip] him/her the store? > *Do* you [snip] > have any critical? [snip] > Is [snip] she/he able to > cope with challenges > and debate > the way people do on this list or does that put you > in danger of losing > [snip] his/her services? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:18:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Joel Ware IV To: hardware at scn.org Subject: OPS: Re: onerous volunteer screening requirements In-Reply-To: <199910191958.MAA05966 at scn.org> Message-ID: Gentlemen: We have a policy that items posted to hardware stay there. Several have violated it recently. Now let's abide by it. -Joel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:52:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Rich Littleton To: "Scot Harkins on SCN.org" cc: hardware at scn.org, jw4 at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org, scna at scn.org, volunteer at scn.org, volunteers at scn.org Subject: OPS: Re: Background Checks In-Reply-To: <003501bf1a6f$aa331630$078cc5ce at thurman.com> Message-ID: Scott, Well reasoned. I, for one, have not heard of any grounds for doing background checks. I suspect that this background check question has come up because the board is looking at getting liability insurance. The more loopholes that can be closed, the more likely will be the low insurance rate. However, I think the issue borders on extreme, precisely because (a) we don't deal with fragile populations in fiduciary circumstances and (b) we do almost all of our contact work in groups which lessens the chance some odd duck will behave oddly. However, my main concern is that, again, the decision-makers are off on a tangent dealing with secondary or tertiary matters rather than making SCN go. (more on that later. Stay tuned.) Rich ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:06:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Rich Littleton X-Sender: be718 at scn To: hardware at scn.org Subject: Re: OPS: Re: onerous volunteer screening requirements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hardware, This warning from Joel is precisely the abuse of the narrow distribution policy recently proposed in hardware. Joel has done this sort of indefinite warning before. What messages violated this policy of his? Does he mean the background check discussion. Who knows. But, he can use the vague warning as a first warning and then drop the ax at some later event. Actually, I think the background check issue did NOT start in hardware. Can that be checked? But, anyway, Joel's approach would cut off posting the background check discussion that is including hardware people. While it makes great sense to restrict messages about settings, technical vulnerabilities, etc., that rationale has no connection with a discussion about volunteer background checks. Don't be comfortable with this sort of official censureship. The hardware policy should distinguish between truly sensitive info and relevant OTHER content. Maybe we need to form and SCN ACLU group for internal communication on SCN... Hmmmmmmmm. Rich ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-Id: <199910200824.BAA05375 at scn4.scn.org> From: "Stan Protigal" To: hardware at scn.org Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:10:20 -0700 Subject: Re: OPS: Re: Background Checks In-reply-to: <003501bf1a6f$aa331630$078cc5ce at thurman.com> I'll send some guaranteed pure urine samples. That way we can have our background checks and make everyone happy. And just were are we going to get background checks from, anyhow? Do we ask to inspect the disk drive of a volunteer's home computer? I dont' think the data we need exists. - s ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:54:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Seattle Astronomical Society To: hardware at scn.org Subject: Re: OPS: Re: Background Checks In-Reply-To: <199910200824.BAA05375 at scn4.scn.org> Message-ID: ? Hire private investigators? Bring in the FBI or CIA? I hear the former KGB is kind of hard up for work these days - maybe we could contract it out to them! :>) Ken Applegate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <002e01bf1b2c$6a559d90$078cc5ce at thurman.com> From: "Scot Harkins on SCN.org" To: References: Subject: Re: OPS: Re: Background Checks Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:53:33 -0700 Hmmmm.... > ? Hire private investigators? Bring in the FBI or CIA? I hear the former > KGB is kind of hard up for work these days - maybe we could contract it > out to them! :>) I don't know. The former KGB's info gathering taKtics were, to say the least, sometimes a bit, uh, stressful. We might want our volunteers to emerge as much the same people as before the investigation. Plus you never know if, when they poke you with an umbrella, if they're just poking you or trying to insert a poisonous micro-capsule. I'll bet they already have a mole in our organization! Maybe they shouldn't be hired since they would cover their own mole. Hyjinks Hysterical Security Service. Background checks on the fly, DNA logging, ID cards, free suckers. Scot Harkins (KA5KDU) | Systems Administrator, Thurman Ind, Bothell, WA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:31:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Groves To: hardware at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org, volunteer at scn.org, volunteers at scn.org, SCN Voicemail , SCN help Subject: OPS: Re: Background Checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Please note the extent of this posting - and PLEASE don't respond to the total set of lists. I am posting this broadly to stimulate discussion IN each of the lists, NOT massively across all lists. I don't know what the appropriate venue is for this discussion - perhaps the volunteers list? OK - everybody take a deep breath and back up two steps. Time out. NOBODY, as far as I know, is talking about instituting across-the-board background checks in this organization. If they are, then I'd like to hear who it is, because I, for one, would totally disagree. That said, there are some realities out there. Organizations get sued. People get sued. Whatever you think of the validity of some of the suits or even the concept of suing, it is a reality that we, as an organization need to be aware of. And there have been discussions, on different levels, about the POSSIBILITY of requiring checks for CERTAIN roles within the organization. At this point, there has been NO change in our defacto policy of NOT requiring any checks. As I see it right now there are only a few possible scenarios. 1) We may need to have background checks of board members for the purposes of getting insurance. We don't know this to be a fact. Far from it. But it is a fact that we have been researching board insurance. And it also may be the case that it will be difficult, if not impossible to attract the caliber of folks that we desire if we DON'T have insurance. 2) For positions with financial responsibility (ie, at least treasurer - MAYBE the full board) - this is probably a requirement. 3) For those that will be dealing face-to-face with fragile populations (and this wouldn't be restricted to fiduciary circumstances) (i.e. youth, disabled, elderly) where severly negative things could happen if inappropriate use of the implicit trust of the relationship took place. It may be appropriate to require some sort of checks in these instances, especially if the downside is serious damage to either the member of the population or to the organization - or both probably. It DOES seem to be the case that a majority of volunteer-based organizations are already doing this, or heading in this direction. I think this is an open topic for discussion. This is where we have been depending upon the obvious expertise of Nan and others to help us formulate a possible set of policies. 4) For those who deal with our users' private information (addresses, phone numbers, etc.) There is probably a good argument for checking this group. 5) We need to discuss in Operations what kind of qualifications we need to require for sysadmins with access to root. This is also a position of responsibility. We've worked out so far with our defacto process. Will this work for the future? Have we just been lucky? I don't propose background checks as part of this, necessarily, but Operations needs to decide. I know that the character of our organization is very much on the 'freedom of expression and speech' end of the spectrum. I know that there are quite a few of us that look askance at any hint of 'Big Brother'. But let's get real folks. Would it do us as an organization any good to appoint a treasurer who had a record for embezzlement at a different organization? Or have a person who was convicted of illegally using his relationship with an elderly client to rob them blind be put in a situation of trust with the same type of folks? I know that these are drastic examples, and there is also an argument AGAINST taking people's past lives as evidence of their present ones (I mean - think of how hard it must be for an ex-con to get a job), but I think that we have to be a BIT pragmatic here. I really don't think that it is appropriate to consider applying these standards across-the-board. But I think that we need to discuss these issues, and craft a set of policies that are ones that we can live with, AND ones that will allow this organization to do its work without unduly having to worry about what its volunteers might be up to, OR whether a suit is just around the corner. I also don't want to get so paranoid that all of our work is tainted. After all, this is SUPPOSED to be fun, right? OK - I've had my rant. Like I said - I don't know what venue is appropriate but let's talk this over - in a rational way, please. -randy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:53:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve and Melissa Guest To: Randy Groves cc: hardware at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org, volunteer at scn.org, volunteers at scn.org, SCN Voicemail , SCN help Subject: OPS: re: background checks - venue for further discussion - scn at scn.org? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Randy - thanks for sending the note. Venue for rest of discussion - I suggest we move this to scn at scn.org, where anyone interested will be able to participate or at least watch the discussion taking place. Anyone not already subscribed can simply send a message to majordomo at scn.org with "subscribe scn." Or visit the website archive of scn at scn.org at http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ Also, can we keep "background checks?" in the subject line to help readers follow the thread? Thanks, - Mel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --kurt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Tue Oct 26 22:31:00 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background Screening Mechanisms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > Rich, > > Let's stay civil, This type of comment does not lend itself to > strengthing your point of view. You make valid comments and then shatter > credibility in my eyes... Side issue. I'm not concerned about my credibity. This is not a matter of BELIEF IN THE WORD OF RICH. I AM concerned about a lot of time and energy going into this detour rather than into needed vol. work. Joel, as a board member and as the person in charge of Volunteers, has a special obligation to not go off on a tangent and stick to priorities. It seems some folks have too much time on their hands. I encourage you to contact the volunteer committee. E-mail needs vols. Any of you interested in pitching in? Later, Rich * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From rockybay at scn.org Tue Oct 26 23:30:19 1999 From: rockybay at scn.org (Malcolm Taran) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: netiquette Message-ID: Dear everyone A most courteous gesture is "cut and paste" the most concise snippets of previous messages--the most essential threads. This is most helpful to participation in discussions by folks like SCN users who have very limited mailbox capacity, as well as those who do not read through their messages every single day. ______________________ The following example is not untypical of a single message posted: > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe scn > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * [END of message] ______________________ A good example of good style (but not size) is the posting from Kurt Cockrum on Tue, 26 Oct 22:24 To: scn at scn.org Subject: Origin of the "background checks?" thread (big) Thanks Malcolm Taran * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From temptear at surfree.com Tue Oct 26 23:46:24 1999 From: temptear at surfree.com (Tempting Tear-Outs) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:46:24 -0400 Subject: FREE* 1 yr USA Magazine Sub sent worldwide-200+ Choices! Message-ID: ===>> FREE* 1 yr USA Magazine Sub sent worldwide-200+ Choices! Up to $81.00 value! (*with your first purchase of any size of any new or renewal subscription; customers living overseas pay only for FPH (foreign postage & handling) on the free subscription). To be removed from our mailing list, please see instructions at the end of this message. FOR MORE INFO: please "cut out" the below form on the "cut" lines shown, and fax it, for the fastest reply to either our USA or United Kingdom fax numbers: 1-602-294-5643 (fax # in the USA) OR FAX US AT 44-7050-696528 (fax # in the United Kingdom) or send via smail (first class mail or airmail) to: Tempting Tear-Outs / Att. Free-catalogue-by-email Dept PMB 200 3835 Richmond Ave. Staten Island NY 10312-3828 USA SORRY, BUT.... our software is not set up to accept the below form via return email; WE CAN ONLY acknowledge forms sent in via fax or smail. --> IMPORTANT complete directions, to ensure that you get a reply, and more info follow, below the reply form and the catalogue options. *------------cut here/begin-------------------------------------------* Name (First Middle Last): Internet email address: Smail home address: City-State-Zip: Country: Work Tel. #: Work Fax #: Home Tel. #: Home Fax #: Cellular (Mobile) Tel. #: Beeper (Pager) Tel. #: How did you hear about us (name of person/company who referred you or the area of the internet that you saw us mentioned in): Referred by: Tempting Tear-Outs 102699-em-l Name of USA mags you currently get on the newsstand or in the store: Name of USA mags you currently get on a subscription basis, through the mail: Name of USA mags you would like price quotes on when we call you: Catalogue version desired (list number of choice below): *------------cut here/end--------------------------------------------* CATALOGUE VERSION CHOICES: 1. This version can be read by everyone, no matter what type of computer you use, or what type of software you use. It is a simple format, with just our entire catalogue pasted into the body of a single email message, 316K in size. If you use pine or elm on a unix system or an advanced software version such as Eudora Pro 3.0 or later, you will most likely receive it as a single email message. However, if your software limits incoming email messages to a certain size, say 32K or so, then your software will split it into multiple email message parts. Whether you receive it as a single email message or multiple part email messages, you can easily paste it into one whole text document with your word processor, in about 10 minutes or so. 2. For more advanced computer users: attached plain ascii text file ~316K - you must know how to download an attached text file and then be able to locate it on your hard drive or system home directory; it can then be opened with any pc or mac word processing software. If in doubt, don't ask for this version. This isn't for internet *newbies.* Better to order option 1 and spend a few minutes pasting them into one whole text document with your word processor, than to waste hours trying to figure how to deal with this option. This version is great for doing keyword searches and jumping around within the catalogue with your word processing software, if your normal email reading software doesn't allow this. VERY IMPORTANT DIRECTIONS TO ENSURE THAT YOU GET A REPLY: 1. no reply forms can be accepted by email....only via fax or smail. 2. your form must be typewritten or printed out on your computer printer before you fax it; sorry, but *no* handwritten forms will be acknowledged. If you can't find someone with a typewriter or a computer printer, we apologize for not being able to reply to you. 3. forms not *completely* filled in will not be acknowledged. 6. you will receive a reply within 1 business day directly from the company making the offer via email. Therefore you must have an email address. If you read this message, then you must have an email address, or access to one, at least. :-) 7. your fax must not exceed 2 pages in length (*including* cover page); your first page may be a cover page, but your reply form must appear on next page if you include a cover page. Faxes of 2 or more pages will be detected, then auto-terminated and deleted. Your fax goes directly onto our 10.0 gigabyte hard drive and we must limit all incoming faxes to 1 page. 8. all faxes must begin with: *------------cut here/begin-------------------------------------------* and must end with: *------------cut here/end--------------------------------------------* 9. Any fax not conforming to this format will be sensed by our software, then auto-terminated and deleted from the hard drive, before any human ever gets to see it. 10. The type on your fax must be dark and legible. If in doubt, please print it out darker before faxing it in. If we can't read it, we can't reply to you or send you our FREE catalogue. :-( 11. If this all seems too complicated for faxing, just do it the old fashioned way via smail!!! WHO WE ARE: Tempting Tear-Outs is an advertising company that brings potential new customers to the companies they advertise for. MORE ABOUT THE COMPANY MAKING THE FREE OFFER AND THE FREE OFFER ITSELF: The company making the offer is a magazine subscription agency based in the USA. They have over 1,100 popular USA titles available to be shipped to ANY country, including of course, to anywhere in the USA! They offer a FREE 1 yr. subscription to your choice of over 200 of the titles in their catalogue to any new customer using them for the first time. The dollar value of the freebies, based on the subscription prices directly from the publishers, ranges from $6.97 all the way up to $50.00! For new customers in the USA, there is no charge for FPH (foreign postage & handling), so the freebie is 100% free! For new customers living overseas, the only charge on the freebie would be for the FPH (foreign postage & handling). Their president has been in the magazine subscription business since 1973 and they are very customer-service oriented. They will even help you with address changes on your magazines, even if you move from one country to another country. They have thousands of happy customers in over 59 countries. Their price guarantee is very simple: they guarantee that their subscription prices are the lowest available and they will BEAT any legitimate, verifiable offer before you pay them or match it afterwards, by refunding you the difference in price PLUS the cost of the postage stamp you would use sending in the special offer to them, even 6 months after you pay them, as long as it was current at the time of your offer. Does that sound fair? Wouldn't it be great if everything you bought came with that price guarantee? Sometimes they are less than half of the next best deal out there, sometimes just a little cheaper, but always you get the lowest rates without having to shop around. With 1,100+ titles on their list, they would like to think that they have also the best selection around! Within the USA, for their USA customers, they are cheaper than all their competitors and even the publishers themselves. This is their price guarantee. The 1 yr. freebie that you get with your first order is completely free! Overseas, (even after you factor in the cost of the FPH (foreign postage & handling) and the conversion from USA Dollars to your currency), on the average, they are generally around one-fourth to one-half of what the newsstands overseas charge locally for USA magazines. On some titles they are as little as one-tenth of what the newsstands charge. They are also the cheapest subscription source for delivery overseas, including directly from the publishers themselves! Some publishers don't even offer subscriptions overseas.........but overseas subscriptions are this company's specialty! They feel that magazines should not be a luxury overseas. In the USA, people buy magazines and then toss them after reading them for just a few minutes or hours. They are so cheap in the USA! Well, this company would like to make it the same way for their overseas customers. They are also cheaper than all their competitors in the USA and overseas, including the publishers themselves! It is also *highly unlikely* you will find any of their USA competitors calling you overseas, in order to offer that personal touch, just to sell you a couple of magazines! But that is what this company specializes in and loves doing! Around one-half their business comes from overseas, so they are very patient with new customers who only speak limited English as a 2nd language. Subscription prices quoted for overseas consist of the subscription price, plus the FPH. You add the two together and that is your total cost. The exception is the 1 yr. freebie you get with your first order. On that title, you pay *only* the FPH for the 1 yr. term. Their prices are so cheap because when you deal with them, you cut-out all the middlemen. HERE IS HOW YOU CAN GET MORE INFO AND GET STARTED WITH THEM: Simply fax or smail back to us the reply form listed at the top of this message. We will then forward your form on to the subscription agency. They will then email their "big and juicy" catalogue to you, in whichever of the two formats you chose. The catalogue is FREE and makes for hours of fascinating reading, on its own. It includes the complete list of freebies, a complete list of all the titles they sell, as well as detailed descriptions on most of the titles, along with lists of titles by category of interest and their terms of sale. They will then give you a friendly, no-pressure, no obligation, 5-minute call to go over how they work and to answer any questions that you might have, as well as give you up-to-the minute price quotes on any titles you might be considering. They will call you in whatever country you live in, taking the time difference into account. As they like to emphasize the personal touch they give to each new customer, all first-time orders can only be done via phone, so they can answer all your questions completely and personally. Once you have placed your first order via phone, you will be able to place future orders and make inquiries on your account, get price quotes, etc., all via email, if that is most convenient for you. Within the USA, they accept payment via check over the phone, Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Diner's Club and Carte Blanche. Overseas, they accept Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Diner's Club and Carte Blanche, even if your credit card is a local one in local currency (that most merchants in the USA would not normally be willing to accept). That's our introduction of our client that we represent. We hope that we have piqued your interest and that you will take the next step to get their free catalogue! Thank you for your time and interest. -- Tempting Tear-Outs. For more info on marketing & consulting rates, please write us on your company letterhead, w/business card, via smail to: Tempting Tear-Outs, PMB 200, 3835 Richmond Ave., Staten Island NY 10312-3828, USA. This email message has been sent to you by: Tempting Tear-Outs, PMB 200, 3835 Richmond Ave., Staten Island NY 10312-3828, USA.. TO BE REMOVED FROM OUR MAILING LIST: There are 4 easy methods to let us know that you would like to be removed from our mailing list (please use whichever way is most convenient for you; if you are unable to reach us via your chosen method, please try another of the methods below, in order that we can remove you from our mailing list): 1. email us at our "from" email address at the top of this message, with a subject of "remove" and a blank body OR 2. fax us a 1-line message at: 1-435-302-5907* ; the 1-line message should say: "Remove ________ at _________ (your email address)" OR 3. leave us a 1-sentence voicemail message at: 1-435-302-5907* ; the 1-sentence message should say: "Remove ________ at _________ (your email address)"; please speak clearly and spell out your email address phonetically OR 4. mail us a 1-line message at: Tempting Tear-Outs, PMB 200, 3835 Richmond Ave., Staten Island NY 10312-3828; the 1-line message should say: "Remove ________ at _________ (your email address)." *Please note: 1-435-302-5907 is ONLY for remove requests. Requests for more information forms sent to 1-435-302-5907 CANNOT be acknowledged. For more information, please use the fax numbers listed earlier above the reply form, following the directions very carefully. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jmabel at saltmine.com Wed Oct 27 08:32:38 1999 From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:32:38 -0700 Subject: Background Screening Mechanisms Message-ID: <01BF2055.D49B74D0.jmabel@saltmine.com> How about rebuttal instead of rebuttle. Let's stick to real words. If I used smileys I'd put one here. But your point is well taken. Rich, I seem to be pretty much on your side of this, but I don't think anyone on the other side is acting in bad faith. I just think it's important that we end up with a policy appropriate to our organization, and it would seem to me that would be a policy which makes as little use of background checks as we think is congruent with continuing to operate (e.g. yes, we probably need a bonded treasurer, no, we probably don't need to vet everyone to see if they're someone you'd hire to babysit). -----Original Message----- From: Janos Szablya [SMTP:janossz at scn.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 9:33 PM To: Rich Littleton Cc: scn at scn.org Subject: Re: Background Screening Mechanisms Rich, Let's stay civil, This type of comment does not lend itself to strengthing your point of view. You make valid comments and then shatter credibility in my eyes... Let's stick to the rebuttle of the topic and not the person. J On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Rich Littleton wrote: > > Joel? > > Hello? Hello? > > You are jumping the gun. > > First quote to us the wording that shows that SCN is in the category that > NEEDS to have background checks. Giving us info on HOW TO DO CHECKS is > premature. You haven't shown (you've just alleged) that we even need > background checks. > > Next you'll be sending us plans for fallout shelters. .... > > Rich > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** > > On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Joel Ware IV wrote: > > > The attached info from a Department of Justice publication, written by > > several lawyers, lists some volunteer screening mechanisms that may be > > used. At this time, SCNA is not doing all of the "Basic" level items. > > Since we DO work with children, the elderly, and individuals with > > disabilities, "due diligence" requires that we look into this area. > > > > > > Joel Ware, IV jw4 at scn.org > > Volunteer Coordinator > > Member of Governance, HR, Board, ExComm > > > > -------------------- > > > > Basic Screening Practices > > o Employment reference checks. > > o Personal reference checks. > > o Personal interviews. > > o Confirmation of education. > > o Written application. > > o On-the-job observation. > > > > Frequently Used Practices > > o Local criminal record check. > > o State criminal record check. > > o FBI criminal record check. > > o State central child/dependent adult abuse registry check. > > o State sex offender registry check. > > o Nurse's aide registry record check. > > o Motor vehicle record check. > > o Professional disciplinary board background check. > > > > Infrequently Used Practices > > o Alcohol/drug testing. > > o Psychological testing. > > o Mental illness/psychiatric history check. > > o Home visits. > > > > from a US Department of Justice publication: > > Guidelines for the Screening of Persons > > Working With Children, the Elderly, > > and Individuals With Disabilities > > in Need of Support > > April 1998 > > > > Authors: > > Noy S. Davis, Esq., Project Director > > Kathi L. Grasso, Esq. > > American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law > > with > > Kimberly Dennis, M.P.H. > > Susan J. Wells, Ph.D. > > Marsha B. Liss, Esq. > > > > > > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe scn > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Wed Oct 27 08:37:08 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background Screening Mechanisms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RICH I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE BEFORE WE HAD A COMPUTER, WITH THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF WORK BEHIND ME! Janos I even though I have voiced misc, complaints On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Rich Littleton wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > > > Rich, > > > > Let's stay civil, This type of comment does not lend itself to > > strengthing your point of view. You make valid comments and then shatter > > credibility in my eyes... > > Side issue. > > I'm not concerned about my credibity. This is not a matter of BELIEF IN > THE WORD OF RICH. > > I AM concerned about a lot of time and energy going into this detour > rather than into needed vol. work. > > Joel, as a board member and as the person in charge of Volunteers, has a > special obligation to not go off on a tangent and stick to priorities. > > It seems some folks have too much time on their hands. I encourage you to > contact the volunteer committee. E-mail needs vols. Any of you > interested in pitching in? > > Later, > > Rich > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Wed Oct 27 08:39:38 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background Screening Mechanisms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I beleive that the question from our begining...that needs to be addressed in each of our minds is "social responsiblity" I is the essence of our mission. J * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jmabel at saltmine.com Wed Oct 27 08:50:18 1999 From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:50:18 -0700 Subject: Background Screening Mechanisms Message-ID: <01BF2058.4C14DDB0.jmabel@saltmine.com> But social responsibility need not mean swaying with the latest PC fad. I am very concerned that "protection of vulnerable populations" has become the latest method of throwing random suspicion in all directions and allowing fishing expeditions about people's backgrounds. We're about social responsibility, but we're also about community. Community is not about "show me your police record before we can chat." I could go one at great length and flesh this out, but, quite honestly, I'm at work and part of my responsibility is not to steal unnecesary time from my employer. Joe Mabel -----Original Message----- From: Janos Szablya [SMTP:janossz at scn.org] [snip] I beleive that the question from our begining...that needs to be addressed in each of our minds is "social responsiblity" I is the essence of our mission. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From scoth at scn.org Wed Oct 27 10:02:53 1999 From: scoth at scn.org (Scot Harkins on SCN.org) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:02:53 -0700 Subject: Spam from/by connected users (FREE* 1 yr USA Magazine Sub sent worldwide-200+ Choices!) Message-ID: <000801bf209d$1ddb9f70$078cc5ce@thurman.com> Howdy, BestWeb: I've verified that 216.179.5.63 maps to dialin-63.nyc.bestweb.net. Please trace the account/provider and act accordingly. Surfree.com: This spam has been hitting the net the last couple of days, and all have had "From: temptear at surfree.com". I imagine you've heard about this by now. Nonetheless, here's another one. Hopefully, the account either never existed, or has been cancelled. ---begin--- Received: from msn.com - 207.46.181.40 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:49:15 -0700 Received: from scn4.scn.org - 209.63.95.149 by msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:49:14 -0700 Received: from scn.org (root at scn [209.63.95.146]) by scn4.scn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA13638; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root at localhost) by scn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA01474 for scn-outgoing; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from surfree.com (dialin-63.nyc.bestweb.net [216.179.5.63]) by scn.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA01342 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:46:24 -0400 From: "Tempting Tear-Outs" Message-ID: To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=9D=A1?= Subject: FREE* 1 yr USA Magazine Sub sent worldwide-200+ Choices! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-scn at scn.org Precedence: bulk Return-Path: scn-owner at scn.org ===>> FREE* 1 yr USA Magazine Sub sent worldwide-200+ Choices! Up to $81.00 value! (*with your first purchase of any size of any new or renewal subscription; customers living overseas pay only for FPH (foreign postage & handling) on the free subscription). To be removed from our mailing list, please see instructions at the end of this message. FOR MORE INFO: please "cut out" the below form on the "cut" lines shown, and fax it, for the fastest reply to either our USA or United Kingdom fax numbers: 1-602-294-5643 (fax # in the USA) OR FAX US AT 44-7050-696528 (fax # in the United Kingdom) or send via smail (first class mail or airmail) to: Tempting Tear-Outs / Att. Free-catalogue-by-email Dept PMB 200 3835 Richmond Ave. Staten Island NY 10312-3828 USA SORRY, BUT.... our software is not set up to accept the below form via return email; WE CAN ONLY acknowledge forms sent in via fax or smail. --> IMPORTANT complete directions, to ensure that you get a reply, and more info follow, below the reply form and the catalogue options. *------------cut here/begin-------------------------------------------* Name (First Middle Last): Internet email address: Smail home address: City-State-Zip: Country: Work Tel. #: Work Fax #: Home Tel. #: Home Fax #: Cellular (Mobile) Tel. #: Beeper (Pager) Tel. #: How did you hear about us (name of person/company who referred you or the area of the internet that you saw us mentioned in): Referred by: Tempting Tear-Outs 102699-em-l Name of USA mags you currently get on the newsstand or in the store: Name of USA mags you currently get on a subscription basis, through the mail: Name of USA mags you would like price quotes on when we call you: Catalogue version desired (list number of choice below): *------------cut here/end--------------------------------------------* CATALOGUE VERSION CHOICES: 1. This version can be read by everyone, no matter what type of computer you use, or what type of software you use. It is a simple format, with just our entire catalogue pasted into the body of a single email message, 316K in size. If you use pine or elm on a unix system or an advanced software version such as Eudora Pro 3.0 or later, you will most likely receive it as a single email message. However, if your software limits incoming email messages to a certain size, say 32K or so, then your software will split it into multiple email message parts. Whether you receive it as a single email message or multiple part email messages, you can easily paste it into one whole text document with your word processor, in about 10 minutes or so. 2. For more advanced computer users: attached plain ascii text file ~316K - you must know how to download an attached text file and then be able to locate it on your hard drive or system home directory; it can then be opened with any pc or mac word processing software. If in doubt, don't ask for this version. This isn't for internet *newbies.* Better to order option 1 and spend a few minutes pasting them into one whole text document with your word processor, than to waste hours trying to figure how to deal with this option. This version is great for doing keyword searches and jumping around within the catalogue with your word processing software, if your normal email reading software doesn't allow this. VERY IMPORTANT DIRECTIONS TO ENSURE THAT YOU GET A REPLY: 1. no reply forms can be accepted by email....only via fax or smail. 2. your form must be typewritten or printed out on your computer printer before you fax it; sorry, but *no* handwritten forms will be acknowledged. If you can't find someone with a typewriter or a computer printer, we apologize for not being able to reply to you. 3. forms not *completely* filled in will not be acknowledged. 6. you will receive a reply within 1 business day directly from the company making the offer via email. Therefore you must have an email address. If you read this message, then you must have an email address, or access to one, at least. :-) 7. your fax must not exceed 2 pages in length (*including* cover page); your first page may be a cover page, but your reply form must appear on next page if you include a cover page. Faxes of 2 or more pages will be detected, then auto-terminated and deleted. Your fax goes directly onto our 10.0 gigabyte hard drive and we must limit all incoming faxes to 1 page. 8. all faxes must begin with: *------------cut here/begin-------------------------------------------* and must end with: *------------cut here/end--------------------------------------------* 9. Any fax not conforming to this format will be sensed by our software, then auto-terminated and deleted from the hard drive, before any human ever gets to see it. 10. The type on your fax must be dark and legible. If in doubt, please print it out darker before faxing it in. If we can't read it, we can't reply to you or send you our FREE catalogue. :-( 11. If this all seems too complicated for faxing, just do it the old fashioned way via smail!!! WHO WE ARE: Tempting Tear-Outs is an advertising company that brings potential new customers to the companies they advertise for. MORE ABOUT THE COMPANY MAKING THE FREE OFFER AND THE FREE OFFER ITSELF: The company making the offer is a magazine subscription agency based in the USA. They have over 1,100 popular USA titles available to be shipped to ANY country, including of course, to anywhere in the USA! They offer a FREE 1 yr. subscription to your choice of over 200 of the titles in their catalogue to any new customer using them for the first time. The dollar value of the freebies, based on the subscription prices directly from the publishers, ranges from $6.97 all the way up to $50.00! For new customers in the USA, there is no charge for FPH (foreign postage & handling), so the freebie is 100% free! For new customers living overseas, the only charge on the freebie would be for the FPH (foreign postage & handling). Their president has been in the magazine subscription business since 1973 and they are very customer-service oriented. They will even help you with address changes on your magazines, even if you move from one country to another country. They have thousands of happy customers in over 59 countries. Their price guarantee is very simple: they guarantee that their subscription prices are the lowest available and they will BEAT any legitimate, verifiable offer before you pay them or match it afterwards, by refunding you the difference in price PLUS the cost of the postage stamp you would use sending in the special offer to them, even 6 months after you pay them, as long as it was current at the time of your offer. Does that sound fair? Wouldn't it be great if everything you bought came with that price guarantee? Sometimes they are less than half of the next best deal out there, sometimes just a little cheaper, but always you get the lowest rates without having to shop around. With 1,100+ titles on their list, they would like to think that they have also the best selection around! Within the USA, for their USA customers, they are cheaper than all their competitors and even the publishers themselves. This is their price guarantee. The 1 yr. freebie that you get with your first order is completely free! Overseas, (even after you factor in the cost of the FPH (foreign postage & handling) and the conversion from USA Dollars to your currency), on the average, they are generally around one-fourth to one-half of what the newsstands overseas charge locally for USA magazines. On some titles they are as little as one-tenth of what the newsstands charge. They are also the cheapest subscription source for delivery overseas, including directly from the publishers themselves! Some publishers don't even offer subscriptions overseas.........but overseas subscriptions are this company's specialty! They feel that magazines should not be a luxury overseas. In the USA, people buy magazines and then toss them after reading them for just a few minutes or hours. They are so cheap in the USA! Well, this company would like to make it the same way for their overseas customers. They are also cheaper than all their competitors in the USA and overseas, including the publishers themselves! It is also *highly unlikely* you will find any of their USA competitors calling you overseas, in order to offer that personal touch, just to sell you a couple of magazines! But that is what this company specializes in and loves doing! Around one-half their business comes from overseas, so they are very patient with new customers who only speak limited English as a 2nd language. Subscription prices quoted for overseas consist of the subscription price, plus the FPH. You add the two together and that is your total cost. The exception is the 1 yr. freebie you get with your first order. On that title, you pay *only* the FPH for the 1 yr. term. Their prices are so cheap because when you deal with them, you cut-out all the middlemen. HERE IS HOW YOU CAN GET MORE INFO AND GET STARTED WITH THEM: Simply fax or smail back to us the reply form listed at the top of this message. We will then forward your form on to the subscription agency. They will then email their "big and juicy" catalogue to you, in whichever of the two formats you chose. The catalogue is FREE and makes for hours of fascinating reading, on its own. It includes the complete list of freebies, a complete list of all the titles they sell, as well as detailed descriptions on most of the titles, along with lists of titles by category of interest and their terms of sale. They will then give you a friendly, no-pressure, no obligation, 5-minute call to go over how they work and to answer any questions that you might have, as well as give you up-to-the minute price quotes on any titles you might be considering. They will call you in whatever country you live in, taking the time difference into account. As they like to emphasize the personal touch they give to each new customer, all first-time orders can only be done via phone, so they can answer all your questions completely and personally. Once you have placed your first order via phone, you will be able to place future orders and make inquiries on your account, get price quotes, etc., all via email, if that is most convenient for you. Within the USA, they accept payment via check over the phone, Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Diner's Club and Carte Blanche. Overseas, they accept Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Diner's Club and Carte Blanche, even if your credit card is a local one in local currency (that most merchants in the USA would not normally be willing to accept). That's our introduction of our client that we represent. We hope that we have piqued your interest and that you will take the next step to get their free catalogue! Thank you for your time and interest. -- Tempting Tear-Outs. For more info on marketing & consulting rates, please write us on your company letterhead, w/business card, via smail to: Tempting Tear-Outs, PMB 200, 3835 Richmond Ave., Staten Island NY 10312-3828, USA. This email message has been sent to you by: Tempting Tear-Outs, PMB 200, 3835 Richmond Ave., Staten Island NY 10312-3828, USA.. TO BE REMOVED FROM OUR MAILING LIST: There are 4 easy methods to let us know that you would like to be removed from our mailing list (please use whichever way is most convenient for you; if you are unable to reach us via your chosen method, please try another of the methods below, in order that we can remove you from our mailing list): 1. email us at our "from" email address at the top of this message, with a subject of "remove" and a blank body OR 2. fax us a 1-line message at: 1-435-302-5907* ; the 1-line message should say: "Remove ________ at _________ (your email address)" OR 3. leave us a 1-sentence voicemail message at: 1-435-302-5907* ; the 1-sentence message should say: "Remove ________ at _________ (your email address)"; please speak clearly and spell out your email address phonetically OR 4. mail us a 1-line message at: Tempting Tear-Outs, PMB 200, 3835 Richmond Ave., Staten Island NY 10312-3828; the 1-line message should say: "Remove ________ at _________ (your email address)." *Please note: 1-435-302-5907 is ONLY for remove requests. Requests for more information forms sent to 1-435-302-5907 CANNOT be acknowledged. For more information, please use the fax numbers listed earlier above the reply form, following the directions very carefully. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * ---end--- Scot Harkins (KA5KDU) | Systems Administrator, Thurman Ind, Bothell, WA North Bend, WA | Native Texan firmly planted in Western Washington scoth at bigfoot.com | SCA: Ld. Scot MacFin, Barony of Madrone, An Tir scoth at scn.org/msn.com | URL * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jw4 at scn.org Thu Oct 28 01:14:19 1999 From: jw4 at scn.org (Joel Ware IV) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: We DO serve fragile populations? Message-ID: Yes, we DO serve children, the disabled, and the elderly. And I am sure that we desire to continue to do so. Wouldn't it be awful to exclude such folks? Joel Ware, IV jw4 at scn.org Volunteer Coordinator Member of Governance, HR, Ops, Board, ExComm * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Thu Oct 28 19:39:01 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 19:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: We DO serve fragile populations? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Joel, No, we don't serve children, the disabled or the elderly AS DISTINCT GROUPS OVER WHICH WE EXERT "SOLE CONTROL." That is, we don't have classes of JUST children, JUST elderly, or JUST DISABLED. According to the quote from one of those involved in having WA State Patrol background checks, "sole control" was part of the criteria. Joel, you are burning up time and resources. How about you (1) confirm (and include the quotes) what criteria are the basis for requiring background checks, (2) list the SCN activities (dates and places for a couple would be useful) that meet the criteria. Then you will have made your point. As it is, your are asserting the need for yet another project without demonstrating the need. Anyone introducing a new task has the burden of showing the need for the new task. You are just asserting the need. Do your homework. Later, Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Joel Ware IV wrote: > Yes, we DO serve children, the disabled, and the elderly. > And I am sure that we desire to continue to do so. > Wouldn't it be awful to exclude such folks? > > Joel Ware, IV jw4 at scn.org > Volunteer Coordinator > Member of Governance, HR, Ops, Board, ExComm > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Thu Oct 28 19:58:49 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 19:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background Screening Mechanisms In-Reply-To: <01BF2055.D49B74D0.jmabel@saltmine.com> Message-ID: Okay, Okay, I'll be nice(r). BTW, since I publicly urged volunteering in e-mail when I was "discussiong" this issue, I am honor-bound to publicly tip my hat to Janos who has lept into the breach and is helping out (as we speak?) at the Lake City library e-mail tonight. Good show, Janos. While I obviously think b.g. checks are a diversion from needed stuff, still, Joe makes a point (as he frequently does). Sooo, if there is big interest in b.g. checks, would not the following be a prudent list of steps to pursue? 1. What situations are the sort that lead organizations to have such checks? (I think the "sole control" [giving the controller the chance to abuse the fragile people) is essential, but check it out.) 2. Would there need to be a structure that dealt with these populations, as opposed to chance encounter of an elderly person in random e-mail classes. 3. Would there need to be a single person in control, or is the likelihood that the 2-3 e-mail teachers, for example, would conspire to abuse? 4. If the background checker makes a mistake, would that checker be subject to a lawsuit? 5. If the background checker makes a mistake, would that SCN be subject to a lawsuit? 6. How would it be done? (there are several types of background checks.) 7. Who would keep the records? 8. Where would the records be kept? 9. How would the records be kept secure? 10. Which voluteers would qualify for the checks? (I have heard of some super vols. who handle the minute-taking and transcribing for scn board meetings; I doubt we'd need to give them b.g. checks.) 11. Which tasks/activities would require vols. b.g. checks? I would think those questions should be answered before SCN(A) does any serious planning for such checks. So, if there is a group of people interested in this issue, let each other know, coordinate, dig up the info, and let the rest of us know. (However, my hope is that you all help with volunteer recruitment instead. What can I say (grin)....) Go for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Joe Mabel wrote: > How about rebuttal instead of rebuttle. Let's stick to real words. If I > used smileys I'd put one here. > > But your point is well taken. > > Rich, I seem to be pretty much on your side of this, but I don't think > anyone on the other side is acting in bad faith. I just think it's > important that we end up with a policy appropriate to our organization, and > it would seem to me that would be a policy which makes as little use of > background checks as we think is congruent with continuing to operate (e.g. > yes, we probably need a bonded treasurer, no, we probably don't need to vet > everyone to see if they're someone you'd hire to babysit). > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Janos Szablya [SMTP:janossz at scn.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 9:33 PM > To: Rich Littleton > Cc: scn at scn.org > Subject: Re: Background Screening Mechanisms > > > Rich, > > Let's stay civil, This type of comment does not lend itself to > strengthing your point of view. You make valid comments and then shatter > credibility in my eyes... > Let's stick to the rebuttle of the topic and not the person. > > J > > > On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Rich Littleton wrote: > > > > > Joel? > > > > Hello? Hello? > > > > You are jumping the gun. > > > > First quote to us the wording that shows that SCN is in the category that > > NEEDS to have background checks. Giving us info on HOW TO DO CHECKS is > > premature. You haven't shown (you've just alleged) that we even need > > background checks. > > > > Next you'll be sending us plans for fallout shelters. .... > > > > Rich > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** > > > > On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Joel Ware IV wrote: > > > > > The attached info from a Department of Justice publication, written by > > > several lawyers, lists some volunteer screening mechanisms that may be > > > used. At this time, SCNA is not doing all of the "Basic" level items. > > > Since we DO work with children, the elderly, and individuals with > > > disabilities, "due diligence" requires that we look into this area. > > > > > > > > > Joel Ware, IV jw4 at scn.org > > > Volunteer Coordinator > > > Member of Governance, HR, Board, ExComm > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > > Basic Screening Practices > > > o Employment reference checks. > > > o Personal reference checks. > > > o Personal interviews. > > > o Confirmation of education. > > > o Written application. > > > o On-the-job observation. > > > > > > Frequently Used Practices > > > o Local criminal record check. > > > o State criminal record check. > > > o FBI criminal record check. > > > o State central child/dependent adult abuse registry check. > > > o State sex offender registry check. > > > o Nurse's aide registry record check. > > > o Motor vehicle record check. > > > o Professional disciplinary board background check. > > > > > > Infrequently Used Practices > > > o Alcohol/drug testing. > > > o Psychological testing. > > > o Mental illness/psychiatric history check. > > > o Home visits. > > > > > > from a US Department of Justice publication: > > > Guidelines for the Screening of Persons > > > Working With Children, the Elderly, > > > and Individuals With Disabilities > > > in Need of Support > > > April 1998 > > > > > > Authors: > > > Noy S. Davis, Esq., Project Director > > > Kathi L. Grasso, Esq. > > > American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law > > > with > > > Kimberly Dennis, M.P.H. > > > Susan J. Wells, Ph.D. > > > Marsha B. Liss, Esq. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * > * > > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > > unsubscribe scn > > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: > ==== > > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * > * > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > > unsubscribe scn > > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Thu Oct 28 20:01:32 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background Screening Mechanisms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I know your name is on the e-mail list, but what have you mostly been involved in. It should be possible to know how many ACTIVE vols there are and (if they don't mind) to know who's doing what. Wasn't that a project way back in January that Jim H. was working on? What vol activities are going on in SCN? (Currently, not over the past years) Later, Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > RICH I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE BEFORE WE HAD A COMPUTER, WITH THOUSANDS OF > HOURS OF WORK BEHIND ME! > > Janos > > > I even though I have voiced misc, complaints > > On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Rich Littleton wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > > > > > Rich, > > > > > > Let's stay civil, This type of comment does not lend itself to > > > strengthing your point of view. You make valid comments and then shatter > > > credibility in my eyes... > > > > Side issue. > > > > I'm not concerned about my credibity. This is not a matter of BELIEF IN > > THE WORD OF RICH. > > > > I AM concerned about a lot of time and energy going into this detour > > rather than into needed vol. work. > > > > Joel, as a board member and as the person in charge of Volunteers, has a > > special obligation to not go off on a tangent and stick to priorities. > > > > It seems some folks have too much time on their hands. I encourage you to > > contact the volunteer committee. E-mail needs vols. Any of you > > interested in pitching in? > > > > Later, > > > > Rich > > > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Thu Oct 28 20:09:52 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:09:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background Screening Mechanisms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I agree. SCNA is lean in that area presently. Areas at one point that fit this category were: * e-mail teaching * providing a user-friendly e-mail program for people who only use SCN * teaching other computer skills * supplying computers to the community * lobbying in city, county, state and national governments * lobbying public opinion with letters to the editor * lobbying public opinion with a speakers bureau for talk to civic organizations Those are all hurting (most are non-existent) projects. (e-mail has 6-7 active teacher.) The only lobbying I've heard of is sporadic visits to city council meetings and a very rare visit to Olympia. Soooooo, Janos is right. Social responsibility SHOULD be SCN'S role. We need vols to go all the stuff that needds to be done. (Another reason I'm not big on adding yet another hoop for vols to jump through UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.) Later, Rich ______________________________________________________________________ ***** Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded. ****** On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > > > I beleive that the question from our begining...that needs to be addressed > in each of our minds is "social responsiblity" I is the essence of our > mission. > > J > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Fri Oct 29 00:40:35 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:40:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Background Screening Mechanisms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ken's right. Where is out legal advice? If we can't get any, let's drop the whole issue. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ I'm really very easy to get along with, once people just learn to worship me. On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Kenneth Crandall wrote: > Rich, > > I work teaching seniors in an elementary school with many other seniors and > we teach in groups of 2 to 3 at a time. We are required by the school > district to have background checks just because we are on the school grounds > with children. > > The issue of "sole control" has nothing to do with this requirement because > we don't exercise any direct relationship with the students. So "sole > control" is not a necessary criteria before checks are required. > > Likewise the existence of more than one instructor doesn't affect this > requirement nor does a structured encounter. Our encounters with the > children would normally be a chance encounter. > > We need to get advice from outside of SCN because this endless discussion is > getting nowhere. Can't we get some legal advice from someone that isn't > personally involved? > > Kenneth Crandall > bd252 at scn.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scn at scn.org [mailto:owner-scn at scn.org]On Behalf Of Rich > Littleton > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 7:59 PM > To: Joe Mabel > Cc: 'Janos Szablya'; scn at scn.org > Subject: RE: Background Screening Mechanisms > > > > Okay, Okay, I'll be nice(r). > > While I obviously think b.g. checks are a diversion from needed stuff, > still, Joe makes a point (as he frequently does). Sooo, if there is big > interest in b.g. checks, would not the following be a prudent list of > steps to pursue? > > 1. What situations are the sort that lead organizations to have such > checks? (I think the "sole control" [giving the controller the chance > to abuse the fragile people) is essential, but check it out.) > > 2. Would there need to be a structure that dealt with these populations, > as opposed to chance encounter of an elderly person in random e-mail > classes. > > 3. Would there need to be a single person in control, or is the > likelihood that the 2-3 e-mail teachers, for example, would conspire to > abuse? > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From gtruzzi at scn.org Fri Oct 29 10:44:40 1999 From: gtruzzi at scn.org (Gianni Truzzi) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:44:40 -0700 Subject: Clarification of Background Checks Issue Message-ID: <3819DD08.40543E6B@scn.org> SCNers: I have been asked to clarify the Board's position about "background checks." The Board has NOT instituted a policy to begin background checks on volunteers. We have discussed the issue, although not in depth, and a policy has not yet been formally proposed. The top priority that came out of our retreat last winter was that we need to "invest in our volunteers." To that end, we have tried to shape up our volunteer management program, to make it more organized and provide our volunteers and committees with better support. Our aim is to make the SCN volunteer experience satisfying, rewarding and safe. By "background check," we mean requesting a report of public arrest record from the Washington State Patrol, a service which we are led to believe is free to non-profits, and requires the consent of the person being checked. This is reasonable and prudent, and all diligent volunteer operations do it. A "positive" result would not necessarily preclude a volunteer from service, but it would depend on the circumstances. This measure would be taken not just to protect the people we serve, but it is for the benefit of all of our volunteers. I'm sure that most of us that give our time would like to feel that at least minimal measures have been done to protect our safety, that the person working alongside us does not have a record of assault or is not a registered sex offender. This would certainly go into effect for all newly recruited volunteers. It is not clear at this point what we would require of currently active volunteers. You can be sure that all Board members would submit to the same process. Being more organized means keeping better records. To place a volunteer we need to track what a volunteer's skills are, their experience within SCN, and keep tabs on their contentment. That requires that we keep a file on every volunteer. Unfortunately, we may also need to discipline or dismiss a volunteer. That means that we need to also record problems, and warnings given. Such a record would be "confidential" in that it would not be public, but access would be limited to the volunteer manager(s) and the Board. While a policy has not been formed, I anticipate that each volunteer would be permitted to view his/her own file, and to include corrections or rebuttals. I hope this clarifies our intent. A policy has not been established, but it is being discussed. Our interest is in ensuring that the SCN volunteer experience is a positive one. -- Gianni Truzzi President, SCNA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sat Oct 30 23:21:38 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Clarification of Background Checks Issue In-Reply-To: <3819DD08.40543E6B@scn.org> Message-ID: Cripes! I feel like the guy with the broom, dustpan and wheelbarrow who follows the mounted posse in the parade. On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Gianni Truzzi wrote: > > The Board has NOT instituted a policy to begin background checks on > volunteers. We have discussed the issue, although not in depth, and a > policy has not yet been formally proposed. > However, many days ago, Joel said: >The HR committee is working on the issue of background checks, which >are now being recommended for all volunteers who work with seniors, >children, the disabled, and other fragile populations. Putting those two messages together, the smart interpretation would be: debate this issue at full speed. Joel will propose at some indefinite time in the future and so general input is timely. The Board will vote on it without warning, so don't wait thinking you'll have time to give input then. > The top priority that came out of our retreat last winter was that we > need to "invest in our volunteers." To that end, we have tried to shape > up our volunteer management program, to make it more organized and > provide our volunteers and committees with better support. Our aim is to > make the SCN volunteer experience satisfying, rewarding and safe. > The top priority clearly should have been to not use double-speak. To say that background checks "invest in our volunteers" is to turn the phrase on its head. What will the next "investment" be? Credit checks? Even more disturbing is the implication that Gianni actually thinks he's carrying out that directive. A proposal was made recently that volunteers be given EITHER extended time (more than 45 minutes) or extended space (more than one megabyte). Gianni, how did you vote on that idea? The whole board voted to give everyone in SCN extended space. So where is the care and concern about volunteers? Unless you have a plan to extend vol. time or space yet further, then it seems that you don't have much concern for volunteers, except to exert more control over them. > By "background check," we mean requesting a report of public arrest > record from the Washington State Patrol, a service which we are led to > believe is free to non-profits, and requires the consent of the person > being checked. This is reasonable and prudent, and all diligent > volunteer operations do it. It's not "reasonable and prudent" if the organization in question does not fit the criteria (e.g schools, boy scouts, etc.) to NEED the checks. "All diligent volunteer operations do it." Didn't your mother talk to you about crowd-following? ("If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?) If I get you a list of non-profits, who use volunteeres, who DO NOT use background checks, will you re-tract this? >A "positive" result would not necessarily > preclude a volunteer from service, but it would depend on the > circumstances. I have to grin.... So, uh, if I come through the check in a positive light, do I then have to go to the board to see if I would be "precluded ... from service"???? > > This measure would be taken not just to protect the people we serve, but > it is for the benefit of all of our volunteers. I'm sure that most of us > that give our time would like to feel that at least minimal measures > have been done to protect our safety, that the person working alongside > us does not have a record of assault or is not a registered sex > offender. Hmmmmmmmm. I have felt a little suspicious of some of the vols. Especially some sitting on the board. Maybe, just maybe I would be a little safer if I had them checked out...... > > This would certainly go into effect for all newly recruited volunteers. > It is not clear at this point what we would require of currently active > volunteers. You can be sure that all Board members would submit to the > same process. > Now THIS is balanced. I take this as a PROMISE that Gianni will push to insure board member submission. > Being more organized means keeping better records. To place a volunteer > we need to track what a volunteer's skills are, their experience within > SCN, and keep tabs on their contentment. That requires that we keep a > file on every volunteer. > > Unfortunately, we may also need to discipline or dismiss a volunteer. > That means that we need to also record problems, and warnings given. > > Such a record would be "confidential" in that it would not be public, > but access would be limited to the volunteer manager(s) and the Board. > While a policy has not been formed, I anticipate that each volunteer > would be permitted to view his/her own file, and to include corrections > or rebuttals. This too is a positive (good) element. Records being kept secret from the subject are a bad thing. > > I hope this clarifies our intent. A policy has not been established, but > it is being discussed. Our interest is in ensuring that the SCN > volunteer experience is a positive one. Riiiiight!! Then how about some policy relating to volunteers which (policy) makes the experience more positive. So far, you have the e-mail vols. now in the position of turning away homeless persons who don't have a picture I.D. You have started going to a policy of background checks for volunteers. You have declined to give vols. space/time perks as an incentive to be active. Sheeesh! If you keep going with your version of "ensuring that the SCN > volunteer experience is a positive one," there will be mass depression among the vols. (Does the saying, "Don't do me any favors" ring a bell?) Incredulously, Rich * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From janossz at scn.org Sun Oct 31 16:01:18 1999 From: janossz at scn.org (Janos Szablya) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:01:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Clarification of Background Checks Issue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rich, Explain to me why you view protecting someones future and giving more space is depressing? Janos * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From be718 at scn.org Sun Oct 31 19:11:46 1999 From: be718 at scn.org (Rich Littleton) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:11:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Clarification of Background Checks Issue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Janos have been corresponding a lot privately and congenially, so I think he wanted a public clarification. ______________________________________________________________________ On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Janos Szablya wrote: > Rich, Explain to me why you view protecting someones future and giving > more space is depressing? Response: 1. Background checks are not protecting any volunteer's future. 2. You misunderstood the relative sentence. I was saying that, when the board had the chance to support volunteers as volunteers by giveing them more space, the board declined. Instead, the board said it would give all users more space, which is a good thing, but the board had no interest in showing any appreciation for the volunteers. 3. My point about depression was that Gianni's approach to dealing with volunteers resembles increasing the controls on volunteers RATHER THAN actually doing anything significant FOR volunteers. Greater control, less appreciation. Leads to deep, deep depression. Anything else you'd like to know? LLater, Rich > > Janos > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * *