[MR] Another thought or three ... Re: Society Notice

Wed Apr 11 19:57:22 PDT 2007

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I've read all the concerns, and excellent words that people have said
today ...

And I am left with a few points to make, on both sides of the issue,
that I think need made ... take them as you will:

* As a parent, I love the 'concept' of making sure my son is always
protected.

* A problem that I see with the current proposal, is that it is not just
 stating that 'youth officers and marshals' will need this background
check, but 'anyone who would volunteer to help with children's
activities' ... So, anyone who might offer to help out at a children's
point, needs this.   So, at quick count, I could think of at least 20
people in the Barony of Highland Foorde ... and that's about the same
count of the number of active folks we have.  That's $400 in our Barony
alone, and we are a 'tiny' Barony when it comes to people.
  I would estimate therefore that we will be talking about THOUSANDS of
dollars needing to be spent to get 'anyone who might offer help', a
background check.  Then, on top of that, we are going to require that
background check to be repeated every 2 years.
  That's alot of money, alot of background checks, etc.

* Given all of that ... it would certainly seem easier for the SCA to
just require that any children under the age of 'x' be accompanied by
their parents at all times at events.  That would cost the SCA nothing,
the members nothing, and put the burden upon the parent (where, IMO, it
should be).   Exceptions could perhaps be made to allow for said child
to instead be accompanied by someone else (an on-site baby sitter) who
would need to have a notorized & signed form stating that.   Again,
burden upon the parent, not massive sweeping background checks.

* In fact, if we DO go the background check route, it would seem to be
simpler if the SCA corporate just handled that, did the background
checks as part of everyone's membership renewal, and only returned a
blue card to you (or used a different color, or a sticker), if you
passed the background check.   If you didn't, your card would look
different (Or, sorry, no card for you).   The extra cost could just be
rolled into the membership cost then.

Siegfried

Olwen the Odd wrote:
> I agree with Logan here.  There are more and more children coming into our 
> Baronies and this Kingdom which means we have more and more folks stepping 
> up and volunteering to work with them or watch over them or feed them in a 
> children's feast (thank you!).  Even if someone is a parent does not 
> guarantee they are "safe" (sorry but it is true).  There are also some of 
> our older minors who like working with the children and I wonder as to what 
> the laws and provisions are for those folks getting a background check.  
> Perhaps J. Williams or someone from the BOD can answer this.
> 
> As for the money, if needs be, I will personally work to raise funds for 
> footing the bill for this, even if it is just to put a piggy bank at the 
> Troll of each event I go to (seriously, I think a few good auctions would do 
> it).
> 
> Dame Olwen the Odd
>> i disagree good brother axel.  im glad to see the sca putting a good foot
>> forward to protect society visitors and members alike from predators.  for
>> too long a blind eye has been turned at those who display inappropriate
>> conduct towards women.  i almost said "and children" but i don't think as
>> much tolerance has been show for the latter.  a zero tolerance position
>> should be the reality of the day, yet the sca tolerates predatory men that
>> feel that its somehow a compliment to a woman to be mauled.  this has led 
>> to
>> a lackadaisical approach to personal space and that has led to children
>> being caught up in this.  we have seen too many examples of children harmed
>> by adults and i find it encouraging that the sca is trying to be proactive
>> in this and im terribly saddened that this part of society has become such
>> that we have to be on guard as well.
>>
>> im sure that many of us feel that we can protect those we care for and i
>> would be the first one to tell you that i would remove, like a stain, any
>> person i knew acted in such a predatory manner to a child or a woman.  but
>> as much as we would like to feel we can protect everyone we have failed.
>> this may never catch or prevent anything my friend but what if we found it
>> that it would have prevented something after the fact?  i dont want to feel
>> that level of regret.  if it costs the kingdom $700 bucks to protect woman
>> and children im all for it.  much more than i am for new crowns and new
>> swords.  lets sell cookies for those in the future.
>>
>> regards
>> logan
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: atlantia-bounces at atlantia.sca.org
>> [mailto:atlantia-bounces at atlantia.sca.org] On Behalf Of Wayne (Axel) Remes
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:35 PM
>> To: 'Merry Rose'
>> Cc: jwilliams at director.sca.org
>> Subject: Re: [MR] Society Notice
>>
>>
>> You gotta be kidding me...and the Kingdom's gonna have to bankroll the
>> background checks of every Youth Marshal. Youth MIT, Children's Activities
>> Minister from Canton thru kingdom, are they insane!
>>
>> Looking at the Kingdom webpage we currently have 17 youth Marshals, 8 Youth
>> MITs, the Earl Marshal, and 7 Chancellor of Youth staff positions. No idea
>> how many local minister of youth offices are filled. Assuming that they use
>> something like NC123 at 19.95 a pop just to meet the requirements with the
>> inadequate people resources we got now is gonna cost the Kingdom $638.00
>> probably a lot more, and that's the low end of the scale, if they do any
>> sort of real background check it's cost more. We desperately need more
>> people involved in all these activities, and should not be making it harder
>> to get people involved. Leave it to the BOD to, instead of coming up with
>> rational procedures like say...requiring there to be at least 2 adults
>> present at all times at youth activities at a SCA event, or requiring the
>> kids parents be in attendance at any local SCA non event activity, the BOD
>> comes up with this stupidity.
>>
>>
>> And I might add it is NOT "...WORTH NOTING that these measures are less
>> stringent than those being used today by the Boy Scouts of America."
>> We don't as normal planned events take kids out into the woods for 
>> prolonged
>> periods without their parents being there. In fact Parents are discouraged
>>from dropping their kids at SCA functions and leaving site.
>> This is bullshit....and ranks right up there with the Banning of ALL minors
>>from the list field even if they were already authorized and had parental
>> approval to be there, as occured in the mid 80s.
>>
>>
>>
>> Axel
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: atlantia-bounces at atlantia.sca.org
>> [mailto:atlantia-bounces at atlantia.sca.org] On Behalf Of Amy Heilveil
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:35 AM
>> To: Merry Rose; Attilium at googlegroups.com
>> Subject: [MR] Society Notice
>>
>> Passing along information.... Despina
>>
>>> In response to repeated occurences 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaron Faheud Swiftrunner of the Stone Keep OL OP
>>> c/o George L. Reed
>>>
>>> Society Seneschal and Vice President of Operations
>>> SCA, Inc.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Interest Rates Fall Again! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new 
> payment 
> http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18679&moid=7581
> 
> ========================================================================
>                    The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>     List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>   Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
> Subscriptions: http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD4DBQFGHaASUTBVzmoxCKIRAiF2AJ9FfXuG62Y/Vspe61zkLl21QqNdtQCY4IwP
31Kv1oRulS1ZfnLymVPi3w==
=W1iq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----