Absence of target populations

Janos Szablya janossz at scn.org
Sun Oct 24 11:45:20 PDT 1999 

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 <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/     * * * * * * *
> 

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

More information about the scn mailing list