BD: Background Checks

[Kenneth Crandall]

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 <jdean at oz.net>
> 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/     * * * * * * *