Background checks

[Rich Littleton]

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/     * * * * * * *