BD: Re: Background Checks (fwd)

[Steve and Melissa Guest]

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 <randy at scn.org>
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 <vm at scn.org>, SCN help <help at scn.org>
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/     * * * * * * *