Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Background checks for Youth people

Expand Messages
  • Dayle Harding
    Hi all-- The BoD of the SCA is proposing to do background checks for all those who will be working with our Youth. Jason Williams, who is a member of the BoD,
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 17, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all--

      The BoD of the SCA is proposing to do background checks for all those who will be working with our Youth.  Jason Williams, who is a member of the BoD, has asked for feedback from the populace (regardless of kingdom, as this is proposed to be society-wide) before their April meeting, which is next weekend.  I urge any or all of you who have any opinions about this to direct feedback to the BoD.  The emails I've been given are <comments@...> and <directors@...>  Both of these addresses should go to the same place (or so I'm told). 

      Acelina

      Here is what was released to SCA today:

      SCA Inc. to institute background checks for adults supervising youth
      activities

      Submitted by Justin on Thu, 2007/04/12 - 01:42. SCA
      <http://scatoday.net/taxonomy/term/1> | Modern Society
      <http://scatoday.net/taxonomy/term/140> George Reed, Society Seneschal
      and Vice President of Operations, has announced that the SCA will begin
      requiring background checks for adults who will be supervising youth
      activities at SCA functions.

      Mr. Reed, known in the SCA as Aaron Faheud Swiftrunner of the Stone
      Keep, provided both the initial announcement and a Frequently Asked
      Questions (FAQ) document today. Details of the policy's implementation
      will be released following the upcoming meeting of the Board of
      Directors. Initially, the policy applies only to activities in the
      United States.


      Policy Announcement

      In response to repeated occurrences of the SCA having to deal with
      abuse of minors by SCA participants, risk to our membership from
      such predatorial behavior, and legal liabilities if we fail to
      execute proper due diligence, the SCA will be implementing a
      background check program to minimize risk of harm to our people and
      the organization. This program will revolve around conducting--via a
      properly licensed vendor--background checks on all persons wishing
      to serve in a leadership or supervisory position where minors are
      expected to be taking direction from--or be in the direct control of
      adults who are not their parent or legal guardian.

      An example of officials who must receive the background check are:
      Youth activities officers at all levels, Adults acting as youth
      marshals for any martial activity, persons organizing/in charge of
      youth activities for an event.

      These checks will return a pass/fail status. A pass status will
      cause the corporate office to issue a card good for two years that
      must be presented in order to be accepted as an official as
      described above.

      It is expected that this process will be streamlined and simplified
      as much as possible without invalidating the value of the background
      checks themselves. The cost of the checks will be billed back to the
      Kingdoms whose programs these volunteers are supporting.

      It is worth noting that these measures are less stringent than those
      being used today by the Boy Scouts of America.

      Further details, to include the actual process and an implement-by
      date will accompany the implementing guidelines to be issued after
      the April Board Meeting.



      Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
      Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
    • spdesroches@att.net
      Whew Damn shame but understandibly necessary. However, that will make more difficult the staffing for children s activity spaces at events. The initial
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 17, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        Whew

         

        Damn shame but understandibly necessary. However, that will make more difficult the staffing for children's activity spaces at events. The initial reaction may be to alarm some parents. Oh well. CYA

         

        Etienne

        -------------- Original message from Dayle Harding <acelinaofderelei@...>: --------------

        Hi all--

        The BoD of the SCA is proposing to do background checks for all those who will be working with our Youth.  Jason Williams, who is a member of the BoD, has asked for feedback from the populace (regardless of kingdom, as this is proposed to be society-wide) before their April meeting, which is next weekend.  I urge any or all of you who have any opinions about this to direct feedback to the BoD.  The emails I've been given are <comments@sca. org> and <directors@sca. org>  Both of these addresses should go to the same place (or so I'm told). 

        Acelina

        Here is what was released to SCA today:

        SCA Inc. to institute background checks for adults supervising youth
        activities

        Submitted by Justin on Thu, 2007/04/12 - 01:42. SCA
        <http://scatoday. net/taxonomy/ term/1> | Modern Society
        <http://scatoday. net/taxonomy/ term/140> George Reed, Society Seneschal
        and Vice President of Operations, has announced that the SCA will begin
        requiring background checks for adults who will be supervising youth
        activities at SCA functions.

        Mr. Reed, known in the SCA as Aaron Faheud Swiftrunner of the Stone
        Keep, provided both the initial announcement and a Frequently Asked
        Questions (FAQ) document today. Details of the policy's implementation
        will be released following the upcoming meeting of the Board of
        Directors. Initially, the policy applies only to activities in the
        United States.


        Policy Announcement

        In response to repeated occurrences of the SCA having to deal with
        abuse of mino rs by SCA participants, risk to our membership from
        such predatorial behavior, and legal liabilities if we fail to
        execute proper due diligence, the SCA will be implementing a
        background check program to minimize risk of harm to our people and
        the organization. This program will revolve around conducting-- via a
        properly licensed vendor--background checks on all persons wishing
        to serve in a leadership or supervisory position where minors are
        expected to be taking direction from--or be in the direct control of
        adults who are not their parent or legal guardian.

        An example of officials who must receive the background check are:
        Youth activities officers at all levels, Adults acting as youth
        marshals for any martial activity, persons organizing/in charge of
        youth activities for an event.

        These checks will return a pass/fail status. A pass status will
        cause the corporate office to issue a card good for two years that
        must be presented in order to be accepted as an official as
        described above.

        It is expected that this process will be streamlined and simplified
        as much as possible without invalidating the value of the background
        checks themselves. The cost of the checks will be billed back to the
        Kingdoms whose programs these volunteers are supporting.

        It is worth noting that these measures are less stringent than those
        being used today by the Boy Scouts of America.

        Further details, to include the actual process and an implement-by
        date will accompany the implementing guidelines to be issued after
        the April Board Meeting.



        Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
        Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

      • Christian Fournier
        ... Well, it s a bit more than just CYA-- if implemented as envisioned, this CYA for the BOD is a sort of unfunded mandate on the Kingdoms. The Midrealm, for
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 17, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Damn shame but understandibly necessary. However, that will make more difficult the staffing for children's activity spaces at events. The initial reaction may be to alarm some parents. Oh well. CYA

          Well, it's a bit more than just CYA-- if implemented as envisioned, this CYA for the BOD is a sort of unfunded mandate on the Kingdoms.  The Midrealm, for example, could be charged back for the cost of background checks on all 189 rapier marshals, just for a start, to the tune of about $2000.  Just for fencing.  Overall, the Midrealm bill could easily top $10,000, and it's possible that the Kingdom (who will be held responsible for the cost of the checks) might have no say on whose checks they're paying for.  

          For my part, I'm working on a letter to the Board, to express my displeasure with what I think are ill-conceived elements of their plan.  I have no real expectation that it'll change their plan, because, well, that's how the Board works, so far as I've observed: the Board covers its own liability, and does darned little else, without regard to the desires of the membership.  

          Oh well, indeed.


        • David Roland
          As a former child care worker of seven years at a shelter for abused and neglected children I was surprised that people whose primary responsibility was for
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 18, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            As a former child care worker of seven years at a shelter for abused
            and neglected children I was surprised that people whose primary
            responsibility was for working with children were not required to have
            some kind of back ground check. I have many horror stories of what
            happens to children by adults.

            However the SCA is NOT a child care company. And the costs for
            checking anyone who has any contact with children are prohibitive for
            our Not For Profit company. And so there must be a balance in my mind
            between the two.

            My letter also shall be going to the appropriate individuals.

            Ian
          • Elizabeth Hernandez
            I too understand where everyone are coming from. I also understand the frustration voiced, especially when some of us go through very astringent background
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 18, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I too understand where everyone are coming from. I also understand the frustration voiced, especially when some of us go through very astringent background checks for the jobs we hold. It is a shame and a necessary evil and some how a balance needs to be found.
               
              Please voice your concerns, critiques, and options on how to resolve this to the BoD.
               
              Sibeal

              David Roland <mystborne@...> wrote:
              As a former child care worker of seven years at a shelter for abused
              and neglected children I was surprised that people whose primary
              responsibility was for working with children were not required to have
              some kind of back ground check. I have many horror stories of what
              happens to children by adults.

              However the SCA is NOT a child care company. And the costs for
              checking anyone who has any contact with children are prohibitive for
              our Not For Profit company. And so there must be a balance in my mind
              between the two.

              My letter also shall be going to the appropriate individuals.

              Ian



              Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
              Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

            • Dayle Harding
              Here are some of the issues that I will be writing a letter about, based in a large part to the response I ve been getting on the Youth Combat egroup. 1) What
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 18, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Here are some of the issues that I will be writing a letter about, based in a large part to the response I've been getting on the Youth Combat egroup.

                1) What is the scope of these checks, and what constitutes a "fail"? Especially as all the SCA is supposed to be getting is either a pass or fail.

                2) What is the recourse for an individual to "clear his/her name" in the case of a false fail?

                3) Funding....it is a good question.  Will membership dues have to be raised?  How else will the kingdoms afford this?  I do understand that the kingdoms with larger programs should bear more cost than their smaller counterparts, but....

                4) Isn't this why we instituted the two non-related adult rule?

                5) It will indeed, as our esteemed Mayor stated, have the possible unintended effect of shutting down smaller groups ability to have children's activities.  Or, to begin the process of shutting down children's activities at all at events.  Which will drive membership away.

                Ok, that's all that comes to mind off the top of my head.  I do have notes and a draft started. 

                And yes, letters are important now.  The BoD has asked for feedback to help in their deliberations.  Let's give that feedback, regardless of your feelings (meaning either pro or con).  The best decisions tend to come when opposing thoughts are given, and all issues weighed.

                Acelina

                ----- Original Message ----
                From: David Roland <mystborne@...>
                To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:51:41 AM
                Subject: [Ayreton] Re: Background checks for Youth people

                As a former child care worker of seven years at a shelter for abused
                and neglected children I was surprised that people whose primary
                responsibility was for working with children were not required to have
                some kind of back ground check. I have many horror stories of what
                happens to children by adults.

                However the SCA is NOT a child care company. And the costs for
                checking anyone who has any contact with children are prohibitive for
                our Not For Profit company. And so there must be a balance in my mind
                between the two.

                My letter also shall be going to the appropriate individuals.

                Ian




                Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
                Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
              • JC Ravage
                I would add (6) What leeway do we have? I.E, is this a mandated part of some legal settlement, which we can t change except on the edges, or is this a
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 18, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I would add (6) What leeway do we have?  I.E, is this a mandated part of some legal settlement, which we can't change except on the edges, or is this a prophylactic measure against future liability?

                  On 4/18/07, Dayle Harding <acelinaofderelei@...> wrote:

                  Here are some of the issues that I will be writing a letter about, based in a large part to the response I've been getting on the Youth Combat egroup.

                  1) What is the scope of these checks, and what constitutes a "fail"? Especially as all the SCA is supposed to be getting is either a pass or fail.

                  2) What is the recourse for an individual to "clear his/her name" in the case of a false fail?

                  3) Funding....it is a good question.  Will membership dues have to be raised?  How else will the kingdoms afford this?  I do understand that the kingdoms with larger programs should bear more cost than their smaller counterparts, but....

                  4) Isn't this why we instituted the two non-related adult rule?

                  5) It will indeed, as our esteemed Mayor stated, have the possible unintended effect of shutting down smaller groups ability to have children's activities.  Or, to begin the process of shutting down children's activities at all at events.  Which will drive membership away.

                  Ok, that's all that comes to mind off the top of my head.  I do have notes and a draft started. 

                  And yes, letters are important now.  The BoD has asked for feedback to help in their deliberations.  Let's give that feedback, regardless of your feelings (meaning either pro or con).  The best decisions tend to come when opposing thoughts are given, and all issues weighed.

                  Acelina


                  ----- Original Message ----
                  From: David Roland <mystborne@...>
                  To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:51:41 AM
                  Subject: [Ayreton] Re: Background checks for Youth people

                  As a former child care worker of seven years at a shelter for abused
                  and neglected children I was surprised that people whose primary
                  responsibility was for working with children were not required to have
                  some kind of back ground check. I have many horror stories of what
                  happens to children by adults.

                  However the SCA is NOT a child care company. And the costs for
                  checking anyone who has any contact with children are prohibitive for
                  our Not For Profit company. And so there must be a balance in my mind
                  between the two.

                  My letter also shall be going to the appropriate individuals.

                  Ian




                  Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
                  Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.




                  --
                  "Hard it is to lift a full cup without spilling."--Gorice XII
                • Wolfram von Waldersbach
                  Greetings (former) Lady Mayor, There is another potential aspect in this too, involving Archery Marshals. As it stands right now, Archery Marshals-in-Training
                  Message 8 of 12 , Apr 18, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Greetings (former) Lady Mayor,

                    There is another potential aspect in this too, involving Archery Marshals.
                    As it stands right now, Archery Marshals-in-Training are the only group of
                    marshals that have to conduct a Youth activity as part of their training.
                    Under this, prospective Archery MiTs are going to have to undergo a
                    background check before they ever attend a single event for their training.
                    This could have a chilling effect on membership for future Archery Marshals
                    who may have no desire to have their background prodded into before they
                    even complete one part of their training.

                    I also concur with the Lord Mayor in that this may end up shutting down
                    Youth activities across the board in the SCA.

                    I am also wondering if this issue hasn't been addressed before, especially
                    since there are now SCA Members who have parents and grandparents that "grew
                    up" in the SCA.


                    In Service,

                    -Wolfram von Waldersbach
                    Archery Marshal in Training, the Shire of the Grey Gargoyles

                    _________________________________________________________________
                    Interest Rates NEAR 39yr LOWS! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,299/mo - Calculate
                    new payment
                    http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-19132&moid=14888
                  • Peg Cook
                    Speaking as a Girl Scout leader, as someone who has submitted to background checks for both work and volunteer purposes and as a parent-- I don t think that
                    Message 9 of 12 , Apr 18, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Speaking as a Girl Scout leader, as someone who has submitted to background checks for both work and volunteer purposes and as a parent--
                       
                      I don't think that requiring background checks will completely eliminate youth activities. What seems more likely to me is that you will take an already relatively tiny pool of people and chase out the ones who think background checks are intrusive or unnecessary. This will make youth activities even fewer and further between as the pool of willing and acceptable people gets smaller.
                       
                      As a parent--I never turn complete authority for my child over to anyone at an event. I believe if I am present and participating in the activity with my child--standing by the boffer list, shooting archery next to my kid, then I don't feel the need for extra "assurance" that the person running the activity isn't a child molester. If we are going to worry about pedophiles having acces to kids, then it's more worrisome to me to think about the times kids are running loose at events, subject to the "Candy, little girl" come-on of some random person at an event.
                       
                      But this proposal of the BoD isn't about making sure that people running kids' activites aren't convicted (because a background check won't catch the ones who didn't get caught) pedophiles. It's about covering the organization's butt in case something (else) happens and someone sues. The organization can claim due diligence and be done.
                       
                      I personally have no problem submitting to a background check. I would rather not pay a large amount of money to do the check myself. But I would do it. But many people won't.
                       
                      My 2 cents.
                      Evzenie

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Wolfram von Waldersbach
                      Sent: Apr 18, 2007 7:48 PM
                      To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Background checks for Youth people

                      Greetings (former) Lady Mayor,

                      There is another potential aspect in this too, involving Archery Marshals.
                      As it stands right now, Archery Marshals-in- Training are the only group of
                      marshals that have to conduct a Youth activity as part of their training.
                      Under this, prospective Archery MiTs are going to have to undergo a
                      background check before they ever attend a single event for their training.
                      This could have a chilling effect on membership for future Archery Marshals
                      who may have no desire to have their background prodded into before they
                      even complete one part of their training.

                      I also concur with the Lord Mayor in that this may end up shutting down
                      Youth activities across the board in the SCA.

                      I am also wondering if this issue hasn't been addressed before, especially
                      since there are now SCA Members who have parents and grandparents that "grew
                      up" in the SCA.

                      In Service,

                      -Wolfram von Waldersbach
                      Archery Marshal in Training, the Shire of the Grey Gargoyles

                      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                      Interest Rates NEAR 39yr LOWS! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,299/mo - Calculate
                      new payment
                      http://www.lowermyb ills.com/ lre/index. jsp?sourceid= lmb-9632- 19132&moid= 14888

                    • Andrew Otto
                      I am a Boy Scout and Girl Scout leader. I am a trainer s trainer for youth protection training in the Scouts (lotsa trains there). I also wrote the youth
                      Message 10 of 12 , Apr 18, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                         
                         
                        I am a Boy Scout and Girl Scout leader. I am a trainer's trainer for youth protection training in the Scouts (lotsa trains there). I also wrote the youth protection guidelines for my church. As a "so called expert" on this, I can give y'all some insight into institutional youth protection and why it is just common sense.
                         
                        First of all, where there are groups of kids, there are likely to be child abusers. It's like asking Jesse James "why do you rob banks?". His answer is simply, "That's where the money is." Abuse is not limited to sexual abuse, it also include physical and mental abuse.
                         
                        So how do institutions protect children? By putting up barriers to abuse and abusers. The SCA background check will be an important first step in keeping the kids safe. Running an inexpensive background check eliminates a large chunk of the potential abusers. Abusers who have criminal sexual abuse records are not likely to join organizations that require background checks. Believe it or not, the Boy Scouts still gets occasional "failed" reports, even though the applicant knows he has a record.
                         
                        These checks are not onerous, SCA would make an agreement with a background checking company. That agreement would give guidelines for passing or failing an applicant; usually a 49-state sexual offenders database check, and a verification of identity. Most times the companies charge $10.00 or less for not-for-profits to get pass/fail reports. Along with a $10 or $15 fee, the adult would have to provide name, address, phone, and SSN to the background checking company. These firms are bonded and insured against fraud, identity theft and other SSN abuses.
                         
                        The second item is building barriers to abuse and false accusation. Enforcing the rules that stipulate no one-on-one contact between youth and adults is critical. Appendix A of the Seneschal's Handbook discusses this, but in short there should never be a time when a youth is alone with a non-parent adult. If it is important to talk to a youth privately, just take them out of earshot, but where both of you can still see them. Non parent adults and youth should not share dressing areas, sleeping accommodations, even one-on-one in a car should be avoided. The policies take away the opportunity for abusive adults to abuse children.
                         
                        Barriers to non-sexual abuse are just as important. Corporal punishment of any kind by a non-parent is not appropriate. This does not mean that you cannot break up a fight and move a youth out of harm's way. Verbal abuse either from youth or adults is, at the least, not chivalrous. Again, this does not mean that taunting your opponent is disallowed (although period taunts should be encouraged). Hazing should be banned, and there should be no secret societies or rituals for youth.
                         
                        The youth have to be taught the rules of the two-deep, no one-on-one "buddy system". No youth goes anywhere without a buddy (there are some technicalities concerning gender, age difference, etc...). This means that kids do not wander off alone. If they get lost we have not one but two extra servings at feast!
                         
                        We need to teach the adults, both youth-serving and non how to deal with reports by youth of abuse. Quick aside: in Illinois, those people working with children are known as madated reporters. This means that if an adult suspects abuse or allegations of abuse are disclosed they must report the allegation or suspicion to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. If you do not report, you could be held liable. The report is anonymous and confidential.
                         
                        As we have more youth participating, and this a joyous thing, we have to be more careful to keep everyone safe. 
                         
                        Thank you for reading my rambling
                         
                        In Service
                         
                        Angus Fraser (Andy Otto)
                        -*Angus*-


                        -*Andy*-


                        Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
                        Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
                      • Teleri
                        How does this policy affect demos where our main audience is youth, or may simply include them? Do we need to have a certain number of authorized,
                        Message 11 of 12 , Apr 19, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          How does this policy affect demos where our main audience is youth, or may simply include them?  Do we need to have a certain number of authorized, background-checked youth officers at demos? Do we assume, or have to check, that the sponsoring organization is providing supervision with the appropriate credentials?

                          How does this process work for those of us who are not "expected" to be in charge of youth, but find ourselves in that capacity anyway?  Dance classes and balls frequently attract teens and tweens, and I've had children down to about 4 show up.  Many of the older ones do not show up with obvious parents in tow.  I would guess that there are many A&S and other activities at events that similarly would have youth participants even though they are not designated youth activities.
                           
                          Do I now have to start checking ages, parental supervision and ID's at the door?  Do I have to get a background check even though I am not a youth officer?  Do we need a deputy in charge of youth dance who can get the background check instead?
                           
                          What is my liability?  If I am one of the few people dealing with youth, but not covered by the policy, how do I deal with a false accusation against me?  If some other adult treats a child inappropriately at a dance I am running, am I suddenly liable, since I am nominally "in charge"? 
                           
                          If we try and cover everyone in contact with youth, the process will be too cumbersome;  if we don't, it will have too many loopholes to be effective.  While I absolutely respect the idea of protecting our youth, there is no particular assurance that this new policy will have any significant practical effect in doing so.  This seems to me a case of increasing the bureaucracy of the Society, with no real advantage to anyone in the end.
                           
                          Teleri
                           
                           


                          Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
                          Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
                        • Mike C. Baker
                          My interests and contributions of service within the SCA are such that I intend to make formal application for the personal background check as soon as the
                          Message 12 of 12 , Apr 19, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            My interests and contributions of service within the SCA are such that I intend to make formal application for the personal background check as soon as the Powers That Am finalizes the procedure.  I've run informal competitions for the youth of the Society in the area of performance arts; I've assisted understaffed children's activity areas when weather drove more than the expected level of participation (and the MoC desperately needed a break); I tell stories, teach classes, and otherwise support our non-adult participants in any number of ways; *AND* you'll never see me turn down a chance to assist with a demo for the Cub Scouts if I can work it into my schedule / resources.
                             
                            Just hope they've somehow taken into account those of us on-the-road as much as 99% of the year... for a number of reasons, my permanent address is still in Texas and will be for at least the remaining duration of my current membership.  Which kingdom gets the hit to cover me, the one where I'm physically spending 99% of my life or the one with my "permanent" address?  (Or will there be an option to allow individuals to cover the cost of the check -- what I've seen up to now indicates nothing particularly promising along that line of thought.)
                             
                            The Society for Creative Anachronism is not alone in combining youth and adult membership, plus casual participation, under the cover of a single organization (participants, not just adult leadership and advisors to a youth-centered group).  We might consider also what has been done / is being done in the NRA.  HOWEVER, what is most germane to the SCA situation is the SCA itself.
                             
                            A few stray thoughts from a wandering generalist.
                             
                            (Background information:  I began as a herald at the age of 8 -- because of Cub Scouts.  It was another 11 or 12 years before I even knew there was an SCA out here.  I am an Eagle Scout, former Cubmaster, etc.  I was last *registered* as a Scout leader before the requirement for background checks became policy -- I have adopted the SCA as my current expression of the Scouting movement's ideals.  And yes, my friends, the BSA / GSA are *not* the only Scouting organizations in the USA...)
                             
                            Adieu, Amra / ttfn - Mike / Pax ... Kihe

                            Mike C. Baker
                            SCA: al-Sayyid Amr ibn Majid al-Bakri al-Amra, F.O.B, OSCA
                            "Other": Reverend Kihe Blackeagle PULC (the DreamSinger Bard)
                            Opinions? I'm FULL of 'em
                            alt. e-mail:
                            KiheBard@...  OR MCBaker216@...
                               Buy my writings!:   http://www.lulu.com/WizardsDen
                               http://www.livejournal.com/users/kihebard/
                             


                            From: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ayreton@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Teleri
                            Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:44 AM
                            To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Background checks for Youth people

                            How does this policy affect demos where our main audience is youth, or may simply include them?  Do we need to have a certain number of authorized, background-checked youth officers at demos? Do we assume, or have to check, that the sponsoring organization is providing supervision with the appropriate credentials?

                            How does this process work for those of us who are not "expected" to be in charge of youth, but find ourselves in that capacity anyway?  Dance classes and balls frequently attract teens and tweens, and I've had children down to about 4 show up.  Many of the older ones do not show up with obvious parents in tow.  I would guess that there are many A&S and other activities at events that similarly would have youth participants even though they are not designated youth activities.
                             
                            Do I now have to start checking ages, parental supervision and ID's at the door?  Do I have to get a background check even though I am not a youth officer?  Do we need a deputy in charge of youth dance who can get the background check instead?
                             
                            What is my liability?  If I am one of the few people dealing with youth, but not covered by the policy, how do I deal with a false accusation against me?  If some other adult treats a child inappropriately at a dance I am running, am I suddenly liable, since I am nominally "in charge"? 
                             
                            If we try and cover everyone in contact with youth, the process will be too cumbersome;  if we don't, it will have too many loopholes to be effective.  While I absolutely respect the idea of protecting our youth, there is no particular assurance that this new policy will have any significant practical effect in doing so.  This seems to me a case of increasing the bureaucracy of the Society, with no real advantage to anyone in the end.
                             
                            Teleri___
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.