[MR] Random thoughts on the background check policy

[Tassach]

As a parent of 3 young children, I am naturally very concerned about 
their safety.   That said, I don't see where this policy does anything 
whatsoever to make my children any safer at an SCA event.  It is my 
wife's and my responsibility, not the Society's, to make sure our 
children remain safe while at an event.

It was stated that this policy is in response to past incidents.  
Possessing a skeptical nature, the first question that comes to mind is 
how many of these incidents would actually have been prevented by the 
proposed policy.  I have a strong suspicion the answer is 'none' or 'not 
many'.  As with airport security checks, this seems to be far more about 
providing the APPEARANCE of safety than providing any ACTUAL safety.   
How many of these incidents took place at sanctioned children's events?  
It seems to me that the main threat is to children running around event 
sites unsupervised, not to those participating in organized activities.

Secondly, I have no doubt that this is motivated largely out of 
liability concerns.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but this may 
actually INCREASE the society's exposure to liability in the event that 
an incident occurs involving a person who has passed the proposed 
background check.  I would hope that the BoD has had this proposed 
policy reviewed by independent legal council.  It would be reassuring if 
the BoD would provide the name(s) and credentials of the attorney(s) who 
conducted said review.   Furthermore, the society is opening itself to 
huge liability in the all-too-likely event that their cut-rate 
background check provider falsely brands some innocent SCAdian as a 
pedophile.  The probability of this policy actually preventing an 
incident seems far less likely than the chances of good people having 
their reputations tarnished by erroneous background checks.

As a counterproposal, I would offer a solution that costs no money and 
would actually provide a measure of real security:  adopt a society-wide 
"two man rule".   Simply stated, any sanctioned children's activity 
would require that at least two unrelated adults be in attendance at all 
times.  I am given to understand that Atlantia already follows this 
policy.  At a minimum, this would insure that there would always be at 
least one independent witness available to corroborate or refute any 
accusation of impropriety.  The two man rule has a 50+ year track record 
of being effective in handling nuclear weapons, so I suspect that it 
would be reasonably effective for supervising children.

In Service,
Tassach