Clarification of Background Checks Issue

[Rich Littleton]

Cripes!

I feel like the guy with the broom, dustpan and wheelbarrow who follows
the mounted posse in the parade.


On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Gianni Truzzi wrote:
> 
> The Board has NOT instituted a policy to begin background checks on
> volunteers. We have discussed the issue, although not in depth, and a
> policy has not yet been formally proposed.
> 

However, many days ago, Joel said:

>The HR committee is working on the issue of background checks, which
>are now being recommended for all volunteers who work with seniors,
>children, the disabled, and other fragile populations.

Putting those two messages together, the smart interpretation would be:
debate this issue at full speed.  Joel will propose at some indefinite
time in the future and so general input is timely.  The Board will vote on
it without warning, so don't wait thinking you'll have time to give input
then.


> The top priority that came out of our retreat last winter was that we
> need to "invest in our volunteers." To that end, we have tried to shape
> up our volunteer management program, to make it more organized and
> provide our volunteers and committees with better support. Our aim is to
> make the SCN volunteer experience satisfying, rewarding and safe.
> 

The top priority clearly should have been to not use double-speak.  To say
that background checks "invest in our volunteers" is to turn the phrase on
its head.  What will the next "investment" be?  Credit checks?

Even more disturbing is the implication that Gianni actually thinks he's
carrying out that directive.  A proposal was made recently that volunteers
be given EITHER extended time (more than 45 minutes) or extended space
(more than one megabyte).  Gianni, how did you vote on that idea?  The
whole board voted to give everyone in SCN extended space.  So where is the
care and concern about volunteers?  Unless you have a plan to extend vol.
time or space yet further, then it seems that you don't have much concern
for volunteers, except to exert more control over them.

> By "background check," we mean requesting a report of public arrest
> record from the Washington State Patrol, a service which we are led to
> believe is free to non-profits, and requires the consent of the person
> being checked. This is reasonable and prudent, and all diligent
> volunteer operations do it.  

It's not "reasonable and prudent" if the organization in question does not
fit the criteria (e.g schools, boy scouts, etc.) to NEED the checks.

"All diligent volunteer operations do it."

Didn't your mother talk to you about crowd-following?  ("If all your
friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?)

If I get you a list of non-profits, who use volunteeres, who DO NOT use
background checks, will you re-tract this?

>A "positive" result would not necessarily
> preclude a volunteer from service, but it would depend on the
> circumstances.

I have to grin.... So, uh, if I come through the check in a positive
light, do I then have to go to the board to see if I would be "precluded
... from service"????

> 
> This measure would be taken not just to protect the people we serve, but
> it is for the benefit of all of our volunteers. I'm sure that most of us
> that give our time would like to feel that at least minimal measures
> have been done to protect our safety, that the person working alongside
> us does not have a record of assault or is not a registered sex
> offender.

Hmmmmmmmm.  I have felt a little suspicious of some of the vols.
Especially some sitting on the board.  Maybe, just maybe I would be a
little safer if I had them checked out......

> 
> This would certainly go into effect for all newly recruited volunteers.
> It is not clear at this point what we would require of currently active
> volunteers. You can be sure that all Board members would submit to the
> same process.
> 

Now THIS is balanced. I take this as a PROMISE that Gianni will push to
insure board member submission.

> Being more organized means keeping better records. To place a  volunteer
> we need to track what a volunteer's skills are, their experience within
> SCN, and keep tabs on their contentment. That requires that we keep a
> file on every volunteer.
> 
> Unfortunately, we may also need to discipline or dismiss a volunteer.
> That means that we need to also record problems, and warnings given.
> 
> Such a record would be "confidential" in that it would not be public,
> but access would be limited to the volunteer manager(s) and the Board.
> While a policy has not been formed, I anticipate that each volunteer
> would be permitted to view his/her own file, and to include corrections
> or rebuttals.

This too is a positive (good) element.  Records being kept secret from the
subject are a bad thing. 

> 
> I hope this clarifies our intent. A policy has not been established, but
> it is being discussed. Our interest is in ensuring that the SCN
> volunteer experience is a positive one.

Riiiiight!!  Then how about some policy relating to volunteers which
(policy) makes the experience more positive.

So far, you have the e-mail vols. now in the position of turning away
homeless persons who don't have a picture I.D.

You have started going to a policy of background checks for volunteers.

You have declined to give vols. space/time perks as an incentive to be
active.

Sheeesh!  If you keep going with your version of "ensuring that the SCN
> volunteer experience is a positive one," there will be mass depression
among the vols.  (Does the saying, "Don't do me any favors" ring a bell?)



Incredulously,

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/     * * * * * * *