[MR] Strong languange on the Merry Rose (Re: Society Notice)

[David Dodge]

Since someone has played the "protecting the children" card let me trump it with these facts.

1. A background check will only find what has been learned by the authority conducting the check. (I.E. If they weren’t charged with a crime it ain't gonna show.)

2. Past performance is no guarantee of future outcome.

3. The reason that SCA Inc. is considering this idea is only to protect SCA Inc. The BOD's legal department could give a fig for :protecting the children."

By-the-by, I don't reject the idea of "protecting the children" I just don't want to see it done poorly. I believe the Atlantian model of multiple adult supervision should be used as the SCA standard.


Donovan Morgan

-----Original Message-----
From: atlantia-bounces at atlantia.sca.org [mailto:atlantia-bounces at atlantia.sca.org] On Behalf Of stickjock at comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 4:08 PM
To: atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subject: Re: [MR] Strong languange on the Merry Rose (Re: Society Notice)

My question is that we are a not for profit organisation, if we require this for 
> members involved with the kids, and they pay for it themselves, is this a tax 
> exemption? 

Yes, in this situation one would indeed be able to write this expense off.

Normally I try to stay out of  threads that have the potential of spiraling out of control, as this one indeed has, but this is a subject that as a parent and former law enforcement officer, strikes close to home.  I have seen too many responses complaining of the potential cost involved and the inconvenience that the suggested....yes at this point "suggested "course of action would cause.......My question to all is, if these proposed measures save even one child......is it still too expensive or inconvenient?

Miguel