[MR] Background Checks (A long email with my suggestions)

[Kelly Keck]

A few more thoughts on background checks related to children's activities.

First, we've talked about people who volunteer to work with youth, but one
thing that comes to mind is that if a minor participates in general SCA
activities, will the person who is in charge of those activities, and
therefore, in charge of that child, also be required to have had the
background check?  Based on the wording "--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" this would seem to suggest that
they would be, in order for minors to participate in those activities.  We
have the wording "are expected," so I suppose you might argue that it isn't
really "expected" to have children participating anywhere but at children's
corner, but the cook or two that I've spoken two have had enough minors help
in the kitchen that they "expect" to be in direct control of a kid or two at
some point.   And a marshal can reasonably "expect" to authorize a
seventeen-year-old here and there.

So, it appears that this covers teachers of non-youth specific classes that
might be attended by a child or teen, archery marshals, the armored marshals
(as a sixteen-year-old can authorize), the cooks (kids often volunteer in
the kitchen or help serve feast)--pretty much *anyone* running *anything* at
an event.  Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean the MOL or all A&S
teachers or marshals would have to have a background check.  It just means
that if the person hadn't had the check, they'd have to turn away any minor
who wished to participate.  No more pages serving feast, no more teenagers
participating in combat, no more youth shooting archery, unless there have
been background checks done on the adults in charge.  I would submit that
the BoD needs to rethink any plan that will result in curtailing a child's
participation in the SCA (at the very least, if this kind of activity
*doesn't* fall under the new background check rules, make it clear that it
doesn't).

Secondly, I've heard the argument that "if it protects even one child, it's
worth it."  That argument sounds good, but taken to its logical extreme,
that any measure that protects one child, no matter what the other
consequences, is a good thing, well, I'm not so sure.  If we require
background checks for every SCA member, on a yearly basis, with no one
allowed to attend an event unless they can pass, that would probably protect
at least one child.  If we require that no one under the age of 18 be
allowed out of their parents' sight at any time, and if any child is found
unattended, the parents are located and both child and parents are
immediately kicked off-site, that would probably save at least one child.
(I'm not just talking about six-year-olds running loose, here, but twelve-
and fourteen- and sixteen-year-olds who leave their parents' sight for even
an instant.)  For that matter, what about taking it to its ultimate
extreme?  If we simply ban minors from the SCA, then no child will be harmed
at an SCA activity, ever.  Clearly, I'm not suggesting *ANY* of this, nor am
I suggesting that background checks for youth officers are equivalent to
these draconian measures.  I'm simply saying that we can't go with the
argument that anything that could potentially protect a child is
automatically a good thing--we do need to actually examine the consequences
of these plans.

We talk a lot about keeping children safe.  The hard, ugly truth of the
matter is that life isn't safe.  We do the best we can, but realistically,
we can't make things perfectly safe, not for children or for adults.  We
could near bankrupt the kingdom and the Society running background checks on
every member every two years, and a child could still fall victim to the
pedophile who hadn't yet gotten caught.

As a fighter, I take the risk that no matter how good my armor might be or
how competent the marshals and other fighters might be, I could still get
hurt, maybe badly.  Heck, put together the right set of bad circumstances,
and I might even get killed. It's not likely, but it is out there as a
risk.  Every time I get in a car, I certainly take my life in my hands
(especially if the Washington beltway is involved).  If I go to a concert or
a play in DC or tour a monument or museum, I take the risk that some crazy
person is going to pick that day to start firing a gun into the crowd.
Kids take the same risks whenever they go to school (remember all the school
shootings, bomb threats, and other random and horrible violence that has
happened at schools), or go pretty much anywhere.

Since we can't make things perfectly safe, we need to find a way to make
them as safe as *reasonably* possible--without making volunteers pay to help
out, without turning kids away from activities they want to participate in,
without making it difficult or impossible for people to volunteer to work
with children, and without spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on
background checks.

In light of all that, here's what I personally plan to suggest to the BoD:

-Limit background checks to warranted "child-specific" officers and their
deputies--chancellor of youth, page proctors, youth marshals--not someone
who assists at children's corner, teaches a class, or reads a story, and not
the other officers or volunteers who might potentially end up in charge of a
child or two.  This is paid for at the kingdom level, though individuals or
groups are more than welcome to contribute if they so desire.

-Find a way of accepting existing current background checks, at least those
that have been done for childcare (daycare workers, teachers, Scout
volunteers, etc.).  Someone did make the very good point that pedophiles who
are organized can fake background check paperwork.  However, someone who can
get fake background check documentation could just as easily forge the card
that's issued after a background check is completed successfully, so I'm not
sure we change anything by accepting existing background checks--except the
time and money spent to re-check people who have already passed.

-Implement the two-adult rule Society-wide.   The BoD could even require
that, in order for kids to be left alone with these two adults, at least one
(the one in charge) must have had the background check, and that the second
adult can't be related to the first, or live in the same house.  So, the
person running children's activities needs the check, but they can be
assisted by someone who has not.  And someone who hasn't had the check can
still teach a class, tell a story, or volunteer with children in other ways,
as long as the kids aren't *left alone* with them (the class might have to
happen in a corner of the main hall, for example, or be supervised by the
youth officer).

-Specify that the background check rules do not apply to officers/volunteers
running non-child-specific activities that might attract youth
participants.  Some stipulations could be put on kids' participation in
these, if the BoD felt it necessary.  Perhaps, in order for a minor to take
a class or volunteer under the supervision of someone who hasn't had the
check, the activity has to either take place in an open area of the event
(the main hall, the list field, the archery range, etc.), or in the case of
a class in a classroom or pavilion, have the presence of three or more
non-related adults, including the instructor.  (All but the most sparsely
attended classes ought to fit that criteria without extra effort on the
teacher's part.  And, if it should happen that someone who hasn't had a
background check is teaching a class, and the only person who shows up is a
child, that instructor could potentially move the class to the main hall, so
as not to be left alone with the youth, or they could quickly round up a
couple more adults.)

Since I'm planning on submitting these suggestions (and others, but this
email is quite long enough already!) to the BoD, I'd welcome anyone's
comments or criticism.  Do they still meet the "due diligence" rule and keep
our kids as safe as we could reasonably expect, without putting an undue
burden on volunteers or on the kingdom?  Are there parts that aren't
workable, and if so, what, and why?  As I've said, I like the idea of
background checks for youth officers--I just don't want the background check
rules to become a huge drain on kingdom finances, prevent people from
volunteering, or prevent children from participating in the SCA.

In Service,
Adriana Michaels