BD: Background Checks

[Janos Szablya]

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 <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/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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/     * * * * * * *