Volunteer Screening? [Archive]

MattK

30-09-2003, 17:21

Originally posted by Bill Beatty
This issue was brought up over drinks by folks who were "in the know" when we were in Manchester in July. It was presented as something to " protect the students." What a crock!

Some guidelines of a few simple policies put in place by the teams goes a long way to "that" protection. In my opinion, it is really being put in by FIRST to try and protect it's own butt! I am trying to figure out just who makes the call if a person is ineligible depending on the results of the background check?

Hey FIRST. Maybe after passing the check, a simple numbered tattoo on the arm of each participant proving they have passed, because that wouldn't cost very much............

A very disgusted MR. Bill

Even if it is to cover FIRST's butt, it will still protect the students.

FIRST requires that everyone wear safety glasses to protect them, why not this?

I don't think this is FIRST acting as "Big Brother". They are keeping everything confidential and its not like what they have needs any kinda of security clearance... They are going to have nothing more than what presidential campaigns have- trust me I work on one. Its all public information

D.J. Fluck

30-09-2003, 17:46

Originally posted by MattK
Even if it is to cover FIRST's butt, it will still protect the students.

FIRST requires that everyone wear safety glasses to protect them, why not this?

I don't think this is FIRST acting as "Big Brother". They are keeping everything confidential and its not like what they have needs any kinda of security clearance... They are going to have nothing more than what presidential campaigns have- trust me I work on one. Its all public information

Honestly, I agree with Mr. Bill. I don't believe FIRST should stick their nose into something like this. If a team suspects that a volunteer is questionable or if they feel that background checks are necessary, they should take care of the situation themselves and keep it on the "local level" so to speak. Anyway, many teams already have some kind of screening process/waiver that the volunteers have to fill out or follow anyway. Its just another expense and FIRST would be wasting their time when they could be working on other problems that need addressing. Oh and Mr. Bill, maybe the back of the neck would be better :rolleyes: :mad:

sanddrag

30-09-2003, 19:17

I do agree with the new policy but I have some questions.

1) How do they know how many people and exactly who is an adult volunteer on your team?

2) What if your main contact has a problem according to the background check. Who will they notify, the main contact?

Steve W

30-09-2003, 20:39

Personally as a volunteer not associated with the school, I have no problem with it. I already approached one of the teachers to find out about school policy and how to get one done. I am doing it on my own and paying for it. It gives parents a good feeling knowing that the mentors whom their children are with to all hours of the night, have been checked.
How to ensure that all are done? I guess the same as most FIRST things, ask if rules are met and accept the answer from those that gave it.

indieFan

30-09-2003, 23:25

I normally do not put a disclaimer on my posts, but I will on this one. The views taken in this post are mine and mine alone. They do not represent the schools, students, or coaches I work with. I am also hesitant to post my views on this matter as they are not currently in keeping with the norm; however, I do believe that there are two sides to this topic that should be explored.

I hope this is not the case.

1. When I read the page that was linked to from this thread, it said that the team was to pay for the background checks. If this is the case, and the cost of the check is $10 each, that would cost one of the teams I work with $100 to get all of the mentors checked out.

2. How many professional engineers and machinists and others that donate their time to this program have the time to get the background check taken care of? How many of them will not have their "integrity" insulted by such a thing? How many of them will not return due to the background check?

3. The Dept. of Justice took 4 weeks to get my background check taken care of when I was a teacher several years ago. It was supposed to take 2-3 days. This meant that I was unable to go into the classroom until almost a month after school started. (Can you say "dead duck"? I knew you could.) In terms of FIRST, what happens to these mentors if there is a backlog in the system?

4. How many people really think that a background check will "protect the kids"? Perhaps it's just the pessimist in me, but I do not believe that it will. If I were to have the background check today, it would come back clean. Who is to say that my temper will not get the best of me one of these days due to all the stresses and cause me to lash out at one of the students physically? My background check would not have led anyone to suspect anything about me. The other coaches that I work with, on the other hand, see my temper on a regular basis and know how I generally deal with it. They are the ones that would sense any change that would necessitate some action to ensure the safety of the students.

I do believe that these background checks are performed more for sexual misconduct, but I also believe that most of the mentors within this program are smart enough to know how to "hide" their activities from the law. Therefore, the background check would show nothing on most people.

In my opinion, the best thing that can be done is to observe the students and their behavior. Not only will changes in the student's behavior, attitude, clothes, etc. signal something might have happened, but the students often spread news around like wildfire whether its intended to or not. How many teachers out there have heard something from the students long before you heard it from your administrators?

Yes, I understand the need for background checks on people who are performing service jobs, such as teachers. The difference between a teacher and the mentors is not the amount of time that is spent with the students, but rather the circumstances. The teacher is often the only adult working with a group of students (in an individual classroom), whereas the mentor is usually one of at least two adults working with the students at any given time.

Against background checks for the FIRST program,
indieFan

Manoel

30-09-2003, 23:33

I would *really* like to know how this is going to apply to a foreign , private school.
In any case, I feel this is really disrespectful to the mentors that dedicate serious time of their life to FIRST teams.

Amanda Morrison

01-10-2003, 00:57

I've got to stick with Mr. Bill on this one.

As far as my experiences with teams go, most are comprised of people who have known each other or worked together for quite some times.

This is, in my opinion, not necessary at this time.

Gadget470

01-10-2003, 02:48

If it is mainly to protect students from people with "sexual misconduct" on their record, I know some states (Michigan does) have a Registered Sex Offender list availible free on the web. All you need to know is their Zip Code and you can look them up. (Assuming they aren't using a fake name with you).

ChrisH

02-10-2003, 12:41

Bill is right in one way. FIRST is protecting their backside. Having said that, I should further comment that in today's legal climate it is nearly essential that they do something along these lines. Any general who did not "protect the rear" of his army in battle would be court-martialed, assuming he survived.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in California, if a problem is reasonably forseeable, and you do nothing to mitigate the problem, then you may be held liable if the problem occurs. On the other hand, if you did take "reasonable" mitigation measures and the problem occurs anyway, then you are NOT liable. The question before the jury would basically be "Did the defendant make a reasonable effort to prevent this from occuring?".

I think this is the least intrusive and least expensive way to meet this requirement. Anytime you have adults working with minors, you have the potential for a problem. Picking out and removing obvious, known bad actors is one way to mitigate this hazard. The cost is minimal. Will it prevent the determined individual from becoming a problem? No. Will it detect the individual who has been clever enough to stay out of the hands of authority? No. Is it better than a plan to eliminate the possibilities by ensuring that no adult is ever alone with a student at any time? No. But it will probably count in a court's eyes as a "reasonable effort" and NOT doing at least this much would probably count as "negligence". The later can lead to huge verdicts which would basically bankrupt the organization.

I don't see that there is really an alternative and as the organization grows ever larger, it will be more and more essential to do something of the kind.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Madison

02-10-2003, 22:41

This again raises a question (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=167614#post167614) I posed quite a long time ago to these forum, but with a slightly different twist.

To what degree is FIRST (the organization based in Manchester, NH) legally liable when something bad happens to a participating team or team member? Is FIRST responsible for every person on every team in the country?

If I were to injure myself while at a FIRST sponsored event, like at a regional, it makes sense that they might be held responsible for my injuries. If I were to experience that same injury while working in the shop on my FIRST robot, is FIRST still responsible? I'm still very unclear as to where the line in the sand here is. So much so, in fact, that I wouldn't consider volunteering for any sort of background check until FIRST takes steps to show what is their domain and what is the domain of the teams. I'm sure that they retain a lawfirm or lawyer who has advised them on the practicality and applicability of these background checks to given situations. I'd also like to know what those assessments were.

I see that this is a legal strategy designed to protect a very tender target and that it was inevitable. I don't see how it's really effective in preventing anything, however, and am insulted by this cursory measure.

It also means that, personally, I can't ever be a team contact again -- not because I've ever done anything wrong, but because the only person endangered by my past is me. I realize I'm probably the sole exception, but understand that measures like this also have the potential to work in the opposite ways.

D.J. Fluck

02-10-2003, 23:03

Ive already stated my position on this, but im just going to throw in this scenario.

If a school hires a new sports coach or teacher, the school usually does a background check...in fact I think its law...but if that coach goes off and does something to a kid who should be held responsible? The school or the state HS athletic association? The state athletic association sets the rules and games, but its the schools priority to take care of any background checks. (Again) if background checks need to be done, let the school or sponsor handle it if they feel its necessary.

ahecht

02-10-2003, 23:15

This is actually quite a big issue for team 190. We currently have almost 250 adults who have signed up for the team (although only a small fraction are active). At $10 per person, this will cost us $2500.

WakeZero

03-10-2003, 02:13

Originally posted by ahecht
This is actually quite a big issue for team 190. We currently have almost 250 adults who have signed up for the team (although only a small fraction are active). At $10 per person, this will cost us $2500.

I agree with the background checks, after all, us mentors shouldn't have anything to hide... however, I think FIRST should bite the cost if they want this so adamantly :(

K. Skontrianos

03-10-2003, 21:41

I would think that anyone, adults especially, would applaud a move by FIRST which is designed to protect students. While I agree that in the vast majority of cases a background check is redunant and not necessary, performing them will only aid to ensure everyone's safety. Our high school recently cracked down on us for this same issue. Everyone hated it, and of course the school board did nothing to reimburse the team or volunteers who had to pay the fee (which by the way was far greater than the $10 FIRST is asking). However, the checks were done to ensure that our team would operate legally. While it is likely that FIRST is also trying to protect themselves, imagine what the impact would be if someone sued the organization...money and energy wasted that would have to be diverted from the game itself. Not to mention the media mess that a lawsuit could bring. It is unfortunate that we must do such things so that we can volunteer our time, but legal liability is not something to joke around with. If something did happen, are you going to be the one in court defending your team? Just remember, the board of ed probably won't be running to your side to help you. So why not support FIRST in doing the right thing? In the long run, it will only serve to benefit the community and promote a fun, and healthy competition.

Tytus Gerrish

03-10-2003, 21:58

i dont need the screening for legoleague im an employee of the Palm beach county school board and they do bakground checks anyways, heres my Fingerprint card

DaBruteForceGuy

04-10-2003, 17:39

Sounds like a good idea. I know that mentors are a crucial part of FIRST and my team for one never would of gotten anywhere in our rookie year without ours. I don;t believe that it is the team coaches buissness what was in the backround checks, but i do believe that FIRST should have them to qualify their mentors. It seems like a thing that everyone has seen coming. Probably in the earlier years, FIRST was welcoming anybody to help because they rly could use all the help that they could get. But now that the orginization has grown so much they are able to do such backround checks and stil have the amount of help needed to run it. I think that it works fine, privacy wise, it sounds alot like a certification. Say, a carpenter getting his certification could be a lot like a mentor getting his *certification* with FIRST. It was bound to happen poeple, it was just a matter of time when FIRST was capable to taking these totaly necessary precautions.

Dave Flowerday

04-10-2003, 18:24

Originally posted by DaBruteForceGuy
Say, a carpenter getting his certification could be a lot like a mentor getting his *certification* with FIRST.
Except, of course, that a carpenter gets paid for the thousands of hours of carpentry work he does... :)

Wayne C.

04-10-2003, 19:38

Undoubtedly this is a requirement to protect the parent FIRST organization as well as the kids. But frankly it is going to be a royal pain in the neck and ultimately a turnoff for would be volunteers. It also is an invasion of privacy for all involved.

I know that when my school sanctions events like FIRST trips they assume responsibility for the school based function. They don't require all the chaperones to go through security checks. Our staff is required however, as are all teachers in my state.

I guess what this leads to is the definition of volunteers. Is a college kid who directs crowds at a venue required to go though all this? Are my engineers? How about the workers at the event sites? Or is this limited to those who are directly responsible for the health and well being of the kids?

I can see trip chaperones being screened since they have off hours, potentially private contact with the kids. But that should be the school's and parent's business, not FIRST's. But for EVERY person working at a venue to need to security check in with FIRST- thats a bit too severe and probably unenforcible. What's next- security checks for the public attending? They have equal access to the kids if they wanted.

Perhaps a better strategy might be a disclaimer to be signed by students and their parents with a permission to participate form (much as the forms for attending Nats) where FIRST is cleared of liability. Nobody wants to see kids harmed but neither do we want to live in a police state.

WC

DaBruteForceGuy

04-10-2003, 23:17

Originally posted by Dave Flowerday
Except, of course, that a carpenter gets paid for the thousands of hours of carpentry work he does... :)

haha, very true... but i must argue that, the carpenter doesn;t get paid for his certification. It merely shows to others that he is certified to perform the trade the right way (people kno what they are getting). What he does with the certification is up to him (work the 1000's of hours of carpentry for money).

Katie Reynolds

05-10-2003, 20:04

Yes, I understand that FIRST is doing this just to cover their behinds.

But I don't see how FIRST can possibly enforce something like this. From time to time, we'll have a new mentor join the team a week or two into the build. Do they have to wait until they're cleared before they can participate? What about the parents that bring dinner for us during the build? Most parents, if told they had to clear a background check before they could bring their child dinner, would rather give the kid $5 to get something to eat. How about the president of the company who sponsors a team? Say he or she wants to go check on what they're putting their moeny towards and are told, "Oh, sorry - we need you to submit to a background check before you can get close to one of the students."

Pehaps if FIRST were a one-on-one program, then I would understand why they want to do it but when you have five adults working with 30 kids in a group environment ... it doesn't seem necessary to me.

Think about it. Other mentors, parents and students on a team will know if something is up with one of the mentors. Background checks should be a team issue, not a FIRST issue. If the team feels it is necessary to do it, that's wonderful. But FIRST should not make mentors submit to a check such as this.

Just my $.02

- Katie

KenWittlief

05-10-2003, 21:53

unfortunately in our society children (and teenagers) are sexually molested and assulted. The FIRST program is just the type of thing a sex offender would be drawn to, working closely with teenagers over a long period of time, trips to regionals and other events in which a persons time cannot be tracked for the entire duration. The potential for 'off site' work being done, side trips for parts or food....

If someone you know had been sexually abused, I dont think you would mind submitting to this background check, or paying the $10 yourself, even if it will only keep one person off a team this year.

Dont think that just because YOU would never do anything wrong to a student, or if you are a student, that you would speak up loud and clear if any adult tried to do something to you

that doesnt mean it never happens. It happens far too many times. If we stop even one such occurance then the collective $10 from each volunteer will be money well spent.

djcapelis

05-10-2003, 22:07

<sarcasm> Look, if the guys on the team can't even get some... if a sexual preditor does there is going to be holy hell to deal with. </sarcasm>

*smacks himself for joking about such a serious topic, hits the submit button anyways.

DaBruteForceGuy

06-10-2003, 15:08

Originally posted by djcapelis
<sarcasm> Look, if the guys on the team can't even get some... if a sexual preditor does there is going to be holy hell to deal with. </sarcasm>

*smacks himself for joking about such a serious topic, hits the submit button anyways.

....amazing, absolutely amazing....

Brm789

18-11-2003, 15:13

I think I've posted about this somewhere else but I'll say it again just so it gets somewhere. At what age do you stop being a student and become an adult? I hate to say this but...well...some students are rather old. In Delaware, especially in the public system, it isn't uncommon to have a senior graduate at 19. He is still a student yet an adult, by atleast a year, at the same time. Should he too then be required to have a background check done? And what about these kids you see on news programs who are 14-16 raped, beating, sexual molest, and/or just being cruel to other kids? What if one of those kids ended up on a team? I know there are applications and you have to show you want to be there for our team but still...you can't catch everything. I think what FIRST is doing is smart and safe, and I am all for it but I just question at how effective it is going to be. How do you know you don't have an 18 yr old senior with track record that would make you shudder? And....should you be checking your students too? Where does the line begin and end. I worry far too much for my age but you have to understand, someone has too...don't they?

generalbrando

18-11-2003, 17:50

There have been threads dedicated to warnings about problems that have occured on teams - problems that likely would have been prevented had background checks been done. I'm not saying this will really prevent everything bad from happening.

The reality is that if everyone of you opens you wallet, your online banking service, or your check book - you'll find that you can infact spare $10 somewhere in there. Maybe you have to wait till the next pay check - but I won't believe that someone can't come up with $10. I'm a broke college student on total aid and I could spare twice that. So if you have hundreds of checks to perform - you should probably just ask the individuals to hand over $10. Yes, that's backward because they are volunteering. However, if they really want to volunteer they will understand that you simply can't meet this requirement without $10 from them.

I don't see this as a major problem, so I'm approaching it lightly. This will make things a little more complicated and you can argue "at what cost?" The cost may be a couple days of paper work and a few absent engineers. The gain may be that the bright faces you see at your meetings will not be killed or mollested.

Katie, the way I understand it, a parent dropping off food or stopping by to see what's going on would not require a back ground check. The sponsors, assuming they aren't there every night, shouldn't need one either. And as for saying that someone will know something is up: teams are larger or smaller and organized differently. It is possible that they would not notice something is up.

Yes, I understand FIRST is covering themselves as well. But as for Bill's comment about team policies: that may be a good idea. However, what is Team Hammond's policy (I'd never heard there was one when I was on the team) and for the rest of you - do you have a policy and would you make one just because FIRST suggested one?

Any way you cut it, it looks like we'll have to deal with it for this year. Maybe next year FIRST can lower the price or provide more alternatives. I wouldn't, however, suggest to them that they get rid of it.

BerserkerSpyke

18-11-2003, 20:20

Originally posted by Brm789
I think I've posted about this somewhere else but I'll say it again just so it gets somewhere. At what age do you stop being a student and become an adult? I hate to say this but...well...some students are rather old. In Delaware, especially in the public system, it isn't uncommon to have a senior graduate at 19. He is still a student yet an adult, by atleast a year, at the same time. Should he too then be required to have a background check done? And what about these kids you see on news programs who are 14-16 raped, beating, sexual molest, and/or just being cruel to other kids? What if one of those kids ended up on a team? I know there are applications and you have to show you want to be there for our team but still...you can't catch everything. I think what FIRST is doing is smart and safe, and I am all for it but I just question at how effective it is going to be. How do you know you don't have an 18 yr old senior with track record that would make you shudder? And....should you be checking your students too? Where does the line begin and end. I worry far too much for my age but you have to understand, someone has too...don't they?

And then there are teams made completely of college students (Team 190 of WPI for example). Are these students considered "adults" by FIRST?
Plus, how can FIRST expect people to give up the privacy of their past, maybe their acidents or just stupid mistakes, to volunteer to help a group of kids? Many people have secrets in their pasts that haunt them or they may have even redeemed for. Does a simple organization, a structured group activity, have the right to reveal the past of people just because they are above a certain age?

Steve W

18-11-2003, 21:06

Yes to most of your questions. As a Parent I want to know who my children are with. As a Mentor I want the parents to know who their child is with. Before FIRST brought this into effect I volunteered to get the police check done and I paid for it. As an outsider to the school, shouldn't I be willing to help make others comfortable. FIRST is a great program and well worth the time invested. I feel it should continue with as safe as enviorment as possible.
I know that there is never any for sures BUT do we want to take chances with our young people. Once you are no longer a student you become a mentor. It has nothing to do with being an adult. Many who know me say that I have never grown up and I have been out of school for over 30 years. Question might be "who is an adult?"

Brm789

18-11-2003, 21:36

Originally posted by Steve W
Yes to most of your questions. As a Parent I want to know who my children are with. As a Mentor I want the parents to know who their child is with. Before FIRST brought this into effect I volunteered to get the police check done and I paid for it. As an outsider to the school, shouldn't I be willing to help make others comfortable. FIRST is a great program and well worth the time invested. I feel it should continue with as safe as enviorment as possible.
I know that there is never any for sures BUT do we want to take chances with our young people. Once you are no longer a student you become a mentor. It has nothing to do with being an adult. Many who know me say that I have never grown up and I have been out of school for over 30 years. Question might be "who is an adult?"

Exactly, who is an adult? I hate to say this but...everyone (students and adults) over the age of 14 should have a background check just to be sure. I doubt highly that anyone will show up anything on their record but wouldn't it make it safer for the rest of us? Don't you want to be sure you know the kid next to you isn't going to try and rape you? There are only three girls on my team (and some teams are all one sex) but that doesn't mean anything. That only means that there are less of a chance...but there is that chance. Too many bad things have happened to good people. FiRST was created to be a place to have students go to learn about Science and Technology in a safe and fun manner. They require us to wear safety glasses and not to do things that would be unsafe so I find this newest requirement great. I want to be safe and I want my fellow teammates to be safe. I'm not an adult and I'm not a mother but that doesn't mean I don't worry about others like a parent would. I do worry. I worry about my friends.

This is a great idea and I appluad it. I just feel that it should be done to everyone. If you are a freshman in high school, you should have a background check and if you have a team that is organized in manner that it is not associated with one school (such as MOE) then I think that there should at the very least be a look given to the school records. Has the student been suspended? Expelled? Why? How many detetenions have they received that year? For what? I mean, come on. Do you really want a student on the team who has been suspended three times in the past year for fighting with other students? I do not mean to say that this should just be the main factor of whither they are in or not but rather that it should be a peice of thought that is there. Think about this guys. You are trusting complete strangers with your life every single time you walk in that door. Every time you sit down and start a meeting, you are trust the people around you to be honest outstanding members of the community. This newest requirement is only there the ensure that your trust isn't blindly and falsely put into those people.

Wetzel

18-11-2003, 22:35

This background check would show nothing that the police do not have. Suspensions and expulsions are part of a school record that would not show up on any background check.

What about the engineers on the team that have already gone through major hoops for clearance at work, or even just to get hired? I had a Virginia State Police background check done has part of becoming an EMT, will that count or will I have to pay another $10 (I spent $60 already on the VSP one) to get the 'sanctioned' background check.

Has anyone received details yet on what what done? All the FIRST website says is
FIRST will contact registered teams via email in October to provide details on how to meet the screening requirements. We believe that these new measures will help provide parents of children who participate in FIRST programs a greater sense of security

I do appreciate how FIRST dosn't even pretend that this will actually increase security, but only the perception thereof.

Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unnecessary and ineffective

Wetzel

02-12-2003, 23:05

So anyone seen any info on how to do the background checks?

If they don't figure this out soon, it won't be much good. Teams are already starting to meet often, and it takes time for the checks to actually be run.

Wetzel

kpugh

03-12-2003, 13:23

http://forums.chiefdelphi.com/showthread.php?t=22733&highlight=volunteer+screening
Not sure if this is just for FLL or if FIRST Robotics mentors have to do it too.

Joe Ross

03-12-2003, 14:11

So anyone seen any info on how to do the background checks?

FIRST has already provided that information to the main team contact. It is up to the main team contact to go from there.

JonA

06-12-2003, 13:36

Here is the e-mail blast archive thread on the FIRST Youth Protection and Adult Leadership policy.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22968

Yan Wang

06-12-2003, 15:02

Let's see...

Our head engineer is the father of two of the people on our team. One of them a junior, one a freshman at RIT.

The head engineer works @ BorgWarner and works sometimes with our 2nd engineer... who is also father of a student on the team, also a junior.

Our electrical engineer was father of someone who used to be on the team.

My dad works with the first 2 mentioned engineers at BorgWarner... I have known these people for a long time, along with their kids on the team. Even if the background check fee is waived, it's still a waste of time for our team mentors.

Then again, I also do agree that it won't hurt to do it.

Anarkissed

07-12-2003, 02:06

Does anyone else feel slightly disheartened at the fact that people volunteering their time must be scrutinized, making sure they haven't made a mistake in their past which may be seen as something endangering a childs life or wellbeing?

All FIRST Team Mentors are required to complete a standardized internet-based background check process. Adults already screened by a public school system to work with youth are exempt from the application and screening process. A Team Mentor is defined as any adult, 18 or older, who works directly with youth on a FIRST Robotics Competition or FIRST LEGO League team. FIRST will issue separate guidance for teams located outside the United States.

According to this, I as an 18 year old senior that will graduate 19, and vice-president of our team, need a backround check. Can I not take my friend aside during a robotics competition and talk to them privately if they are not an adult?

A friend of mine is 19, in high school, and thinking about being on the team. According to FIRSTS policy it would be necessary for him to pass the background check. I doubt he would. All personal feelings aside, he had a significant other for about a year and she was underage, this resulted in charges being pressed by her parents when they found out how old he was at the time (18). This friend of mine is now permenantly a registered sexual offender in the state of Michigan and it will follow him forever.

This policy of background screening for all adults involved has many implications, most of which were discussed earlier in the thread and I don't feel like reiterating what has already been said by others. This topic does need serious consideration on the part of everyone involved. From parents to mentors to students, this policy needs to be weighed, for all the costs, not just monetary, and the benefits.

A former Prime Minister of England said that you cannot outlaw childhood, no matter what children are going to die. This was in response to many rediculous pieces of legislation that were turning up in England and in the USA. 'Oh no, someone choked to death because of the string in a hooded sweatshirt, lets ban them!' This philosophy can also be applied to crime. Take the sweatshirt strings, as a parallel to the backround checks, it would be similar to putting bright red flashing lights on the ends of the strings in a sweatshirt. You bring attention to them, look at them, but it doesn't really change the fact that in some rare incident, someone is going to get hurt. Humanity is not perfect, must we search everyones past for something publicly known which haunts them. Everyone has at least one skeleton in their closet, last I heard the messiah hasn't returned yet. Each citizen on this planet has things in their past which aren't good, it is a fact of life. If someone has a sufficiently bad past, who's right is it to tell them that they cannot make an attempt to do good to make up for their wrongs.

A slightly unnverved Will Gibbins

Bill Beatty

07-12-2003, 11:42

It won't do any good, but I will feel better if I sound off one more time about these ridiculous background checks.

Many of these students will be out of school in a few months. Who is going to protect them after they graduate? Most all of them are 14 years old or older, not exactly young children that would be easy prey.

But a larger issue, what is the criteria and who makes the call as to what is the acceptable background? Is the only concern a sex offender? If that is the area of concern, then call it a sex offender background check. Or, if other areas of background will eliminate you from being on a FIRST team, what are they? Would a murderer be allowed? How about someone convicted of manslaughter? A DUI? Maybe five DUI's? Domestic violence? A drug conviction? A drug user? Someone who smoked or inhaled something? Where do you draw the background line and who decides if a person is in or out? Do we have to go through screening every year? These are real questions concerning an individuals past and maybe affecting their future.

If we keep expanding these types of measures, we are going to create a generation of paranoid, unself-reliant folks unable to make decisions for themselves and demanding that "someone" protect them from all things.

There, I feel much better.

dez250

07-12-2003, 15:07

Truthfully, I have very mixed opinions on this issue and I won’t post them here at this time, but what I will say, is that I think more teams probably have unsafe working conditions with their tools and other items then with other people on the team. Yes cases do come up here and there where something happened with 2 people that shouldn’t have and may be criminal in suite, but how is this going to help FIRST, by doing background checks. It really is just a COA (Cover One's A**) so if something does come up they wont be held responsible, but other then that, this is all just frivolous.

~Mike

P.S. ~ What about the people that volunteer at events, and aren’t associated with teams, do they need background checks?

Raul

07-12-2003, 15:08

I have been trying to figure out whether or not the background checks are a good thing. I have decided that it depends on how we react to them. We should accept what FIRST is trying to accomplish and create team rules that make it safe for students in all cases, not just safety glasses and learning how to work with tools. Well, I accept what FIRST is trying to do, but I have a few concerns:

1) Just because someone’s background check shows up clean does not mean they do not have the potential to cause problems.

2) Even if they do have a tainted background, do people not deserve a second chance? By the mere fact that they are not in jail, the justice system has already decided that they are not a huge threat – just a small threat.

The point I am trying to make is that regardless of background checks, we should have team rules that monitor all activities and do not allow mentor/student situations to exist that may lead to an incident. Mature people should know better than to allow themselves to ever be put in a situation where suspicions could arise. Mentors should simply never allow themselves to be alone with one student if they are not in a very public location. That includes never giving a student a ride in a car.

And in the case where someone was found to have done something wrong in the past, could we not just discuss it with them and make sure they can only be with students when other adults are present?

Raul

dlavery

07-12-2003, 16:02

As a parent, I have no problem with the concept of a check to ensure that those with whom I am entrusting my children are worthy and deserving of that trust. In concept, this should give me a higher degree of confidence that my child will be safe while out of my immediate care. In concept, my 14-year-old will be better protected as a result of such a check.

But then the concept collides with reality.

For all the reasons that Bill Beatty and others have previously articulated, I do not believe that this system will provide a net positive effect. To the contrary, I believe that the long term effects will be detrimental to the overall program. Rather than re-voice what they have already said, I will just urge everyone to re-read all the associated threads, and think carefully about how this may affect you and your team.

I will throw in two pragmatic points about the particular implementation of this process.

Identity theft and credit fraud are real, serious problems. To discourage and help prevent them, and other abuses of your Social Security Number (including resale of your SSN to other organizations), everyone is urged to take precautions against distribution of their SSN. Furthermore, the SSN is used way-too-frequently to gather information and intrude into the legitimate privacy of U.S. citizens. I have absolutely no intention to divulge my SSN to anyone that does not have a statutory requirement for access to that information.

While it is legal for anyone, including a background-check organization, to request your Social Security Number, you are under no legal obligation to provide it. Under Federal law, you are only required to provide your SSN to employers (for wage and tax purposes), specific local/state/federal government organizations from which you receive benefits, support or employment, and for court/legal actions. No private organizations are specifically authorized to require or use your SSN (for more on this, see Testimony Of Deputy Commissioner Lockhart before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security and the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, on Preserving the Integrity of Social Security Numbers and Preventing Their Misuse by Terrorists and Identity Thieves, September 19, 2002 (http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_091902.html)). If someone wants to run a check on me, and they do not employ me, they are going to have to do it without my SSN.

While brings me to my second issue. A significant percentage of the engineers and mentors on the teams are performing those functions at least in part in an official capacity and as representatives of their organizations. If the company is lending support (through funding of the employee’s time, provision of materials and/or facilities, direct financial contributions in concert with the employee’s participation on the team, authorizing use of leave to participate in team events, etc.) then there is a direct connection between the participation of the company and the participation of the engineer/mentor. In other words, they are acting as employees, and not purely as private citizens just volunteering their time. As such, the employer has a say in any third party trying to gather data on their employees. In my case, my employer - the Federal government - does not always look favorably upon efforts to create directories of government employee information (including SSNs). In some cases organizational policy can explicitly prohibit the employee from providing such information. In other cases,(military, law enforcement, national security, etc. organizations – all of which are represented by mentors with existing FIRST teams) it can actually be illegal to try to gather information on them.

I, and virtually every other NASA employee associated with our participation in the FIRST program, am acting at least in part in an official capacity. As such, it is "Dave Lavery - NASA employee", not "Dave Lavery - private citizen," that is being asked to submit to a background check. My organization has not authorized this, nor authorized any of us to share any personnel-related information (including about ourselves) with any third party organization. And without explicit directions to the contrary from the NASA General Council, I do not see how I will ever provide such information.

So, mentors, how do your companies feel about this?

-dave

-----------------------------

27 days to go !!!!!!

Steve W

07-12-2003, 16:04

Last post on this topic for me (I hope). As a volunteer and mentor I am glad to see this implemented. Before this process was even mentioned I had gotten a check done and submitted to the team. This is good for the team, the parents and me. The system may not be perfect and definitely won't pick up first time offenders but it does cover a lot of potential problems. It may be for my protection more than the students. It shows that I am not afraid to have a check done, that I am willing to be watched and that I want to be accountable for my actions.

Yes some people may not be allowed to be mentors because of their past and that may seem unfair BUT is it not better to err on the safe side. Remember it is not a right to be a mentor on a FIRST team but a privilege. I think we should be willing to help FIRST and support their decisions all the way. Do people think that this is just a whim by FIRST. Much thought and background work has gone into this implementation. FIRST has increased its workload by doing this. WHY?

As for students that are 18 or 19, you are still students and not mentors. Once you are no longer a student at the school and you return to help THEN you become a mentor. This is common sense. I see people on this thread being soooo legalistic without using common sense. It's almost like picking the rules apart to find any small way to beat them. Lets try to boost FIRST and help them at this time rather than pick them apart for trying to do what's best for everyone. FIRST is one GREAT organization and I am proud to be associated with it. Lets stand behind and support them as they move forward.

Enough ranting,

EDIT: I have just read Daves remarks and maybe I don't know all of the facts. I do live in Canada ( EH ! ) and my background check is done by the Police. I must go in fill out forms and submit to them. When the background check is done I receive the results in the mail saying if I passed or not. I then submit to the team. To have an outside source do the check and have all my info then I would also have to think twice. Thanks Dave for the insight.

sanddrag

07-12-2003, 17:58

27 days to go !!!!!! You are referrencing kickoff correct? Because as of now I count 33 full days (plus some hours)

Anarkissed

07-12-2003, 18:50

As for students that are 18 or 19, you are still students and not mentors. Once you are no longer a student at the school and you return to help THEN you become a mentor. This is common sense. I see people on this thread being soooo legalistic without using common sense. It's almost like picking the rules apart to find any small way to beat them. Lets try to boost FIRST and help them at this time rather than pick them apart for trying to do what's best for everyone. FIRST is one GREAT organization and I am proud to be associated with it. Lets stand behind and support them as they move forward.

Common sense isn't what lawyers or judges look at. If this is a cover our behind type of provision, then first would want its students that are over 18 checked too, because we would have as much contact with youth if not more than a mentor, and are considered adults in the eyes of the law, whether mentor or not. I'm not just trying to nitpick through the rules looking at everything I can whine about, I'm looking for the things that I have disputes with. Lets just go along with what they say? To me that sounds like a BAD idea. Ok, so you should support an organization in which you are a part of, but without the stinging of a gadfly can it come no closer to perfection. I support FIRST on the whole, in almost all of their decisions, but when you disagree with one, you should voice that opinion, and intelligently at that. I will admit my opinion lacked solution, which is a vital part of an argument, but I think that this idea should be completely withdrawn.

Steve Yasick

08-12-2003, 11:10

I agree with Bill Beatty on all points and would like to add:

I have engineers who have been on our team for 6 or more years. As far as I know they are great people who have dedicated 3+ months a year to our team. Now I have to say that what I have seen of you is great but.... I am comfortable with what they do and proud of how they work with our kids. I would question any negative results of any background check on our engineers.

I don't like the idea that I will have to administer the screening by collecting ss#s and waiting for a green or red response. I can't imagine having to tell an engineer who I know very well that he/she got a negative response and cannot be a mentor.

We have rules in place and we (the high school teachers) make sure that situations don't happen that can be an opportunity for problems.

I don't agree with this new policy.

Steve Yasick
Team 85

sanddrag

08-12-2003, 11:25

Here's a question I posted several weeks ago and received no response. I thought I'd post it again since this topic seems alive again.

What guarantee does FIRST have that there aren't adults who help the team dodging the background check? How would they find out? If they found out, what will FIRST do if an adult who has been helping a team has not had the check run?

Joe Ross

08-12-2003, 13:09

Identity theft and credit fraud are real, serious problems. To discourage and help prevent them, and other abuses of your Social Security Number (including resale of your SSN to other organizations), everyone is urged to take precautions against distribution of their SSN. Furthermore, the SSN is used way-too-frequently to gather information and intrude into the legitimate privacy of U.S. citizens. I have absolutely no intention to divulge my SSN to anyone that does not have a statutory requirement for access to that information.

While it is legal for anyone, including a background-check organization, to request your Social Security Number, you are under no legal obligation to provide it. Under Federal law, you are only required to provide your SSN to employers (for wage and tax purposes), specific local/state/federal government organizations from which you receive benefits, support or employment, and for court/legal actions. No private organizations are specifically authorized to require or use your SSN (for more on this, see Testimony Of Deputy Commissioner Lockhart before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security and the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, on Preserving the Integrity of Social Security Numbers and Preventing Their Misuse by Terrorists and Identity Thieves, September 19, 2002 (http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_091902.html)). If someone wants to run a check on me, and they do not employ me, they are going to have to do it without my SSN.

I whole heartedly agree that you should not give out your SSN. However, the screening organization can choose to not provide their service if you do not provide the SSN. That is their right as a private organization. Whether they will or not, I don't know, as I haven't tried it. By FIRST only authorizing one organization, they open themselves up to this kind of thing.

Currently, Federal law places no restrictions on the use of the SSN by the private sector. People may be asked for an SSN for such things as renting a video, getting medical services, and applying for public utilities. They may refuse to give it. However, the provider may, in turn, decline to furnish the product or service.

jneumiller

08-12-2003, 17:48

i dont need the screening for legoleague im an employee of the Palm beach county school board and they do bakground checks anyways, heres my Fingerprint card

Gee, does that mean that since I'm a DoD civilian employee with a security clearance that I can show up with my fingerprint card too?

We've been told by US FIRST that there are no exceptions...anyone else hearing the same thing?

Jim

jneumiller

08-12-2003, 17:54

The reality is that if everyone of you opens you wallet, your online banking service, or your check book - you'll find that you can infact spare $10 somewhere in there. Maybe you have to wait till the next pay check - but I won't believe that someone can't come up with $10. I'm a broke college student on total aid and I could spare twice that. So if you have hundreds of checks to perform - you should probably just ask the individuals to hand over $10. Yes, that's backward because they are volunteering. However, if they really want to volunteer they will understand that you simply can't meet this requirement without $10 from them.

GEN Brando...you're missing the point from the older and wiser folks among us. This is very much akin to putting a frog into a pot of room temperature water and then turning up the heat a little bit at a time. For those of us that don't want to become "frog soup" it's not about money. It's about assuming the worst about people that have no proven reason for being distrusted.

I like the idea of allowing the schools involved to come up with their own vetting process. If they decide to use state databases of sexual predators (and let's be honest folks...that's what's at issue here) to check out mentors, then so be it...but to do this at the national level....putting money into someone's pocket to pretty much do the same thing is outlandish.

If my security clearance isn't good enough to prove I'm trustworthy...then I guess I'll just not be able to participate in the reindeer games.

See you on the high ground!

Jim

Gadget470

08-12-2003, 18:29

Then again, they may also turn you down because you looked at them funny. They are under no contract to actually perform the background check on you unless you or someone else has paid them. Not just over a SSN, for any reason other than: Ethnicity, Gender, Height, Weight, Religion.. and all those other little protected things.

Kevin Kolodziej

08-12-2003, 19:27

On the main page of the TIMS (http://my.usfirst.org/frc/tims/) section of FIRST, you can find this:
Volunteer Screening Announcement
FIRST constantly strives to ensure the safety of thousands of youth that participate in our programs each year. Toward that end, FIRST is implementing new volunteer screening procedures in 2003.

All FIRST Adult Team Mentors will be required to complete a standardized internet-based background check process. (Teachers employed by a public school system which already conducts background checks on its employees will not need to be screened.) Registering an FRC Team includes consent to the background check and certifies permission to use resulting reports. Any information gathered during the screening process will be strictly confidential. By registering, teams also agree to cover the cost of the background check process (less than $10 per person.)

FIRST will contact registered teams via email in October to provide details on how to meet the screening requirements. We believe that these new measures will help provide parents of children who participate in FIRST programs a greater sense of security. The FIRST community can take comfort and pride in these new steps to further protect our youth.

Based on this, because our teams were registered and the majority of us never saw this, we really did not sign up for this. If we do not submit our SSN, therefore the check cannot be complete, does this mean that we have breached a contract with FIRST and there isn't a thing we can do about it...just not participate? If this is the case, as Dave Lavery mentioned, all of the federally employed mentors lose out, their teams lose out, and most of all, the kids lose out. Notice at the end it says "The FIRST community can take comfort and pride in these new steps to further protect our youth." To be honestly, that doesn't seem to be the attitude the FIRST community has taken...I take pride in the fact that FIRST is trying to become an even better organization, but I certainly do not feel comfortable with it.

This was to be my 6th year in FIRST...I really do not want to have to give up such a wonderful program over something like this.

Jeff Waegelin

08-12-2003, 21:04

Gee, does that mean that since I'm a DoD civilian employee with a security clearance that I can show up with my fingerprint card too?

We've been told by US FIRST that there are no exceptions...anyone else hearing the same thing?

Jim

Tytus's case would fall under the one exception, since he's been officially screened by a public school as a regular school volunteer. That was the only thing that's allowed under the rules FIRST has given out.

And... it's not US FIRST anymore. It hasn't been for several years, but people still refer to FIRST by the wrong name.

Trashed20

08-12-2003, 23:27

Tytus's case would fall under the one exception, since he's been officially screened by a public school as a regular school volunteer. That was the only thing that's allowed under the rules FIRST has given out.

And... it's not US FIRST anymore. It hasn't been for several years, but people still refer to FIRST by the wrong name.
Its still www.usfirst.org (http://www.usfirst.org/) though isn't it? People will still call it that even though its international now. Minor technicality. :]

Andrew

08-12-2003, 23:46

This was to be my 6th year in FIRST...I really do not want to have to give up such a wonderful program over something like this.

The new policy just applies to team mentors (who are going to spend lots of time with the high school students under the auspices of FIRST). It does not ban anyone from participating on a team.

LSevcik

09-12-2003, 00:13

Hi, all! One aspect of this Volunteer Screening that FIRST has not addressed is liability issues for the team leaders that will be gathering the information. I as a team leader nor do any other team leaders (teachers etc ) want to take on any liability if something goes amiss in the process. In speaking with my other team leaders, we do not wish to hold on to people's personal information, (if they fill out the application). None of the team leaders have any training on doing personal reference interviews either. This is another aspect for team leaders to consider.

Brian Beatty

09-12-2003, 01:55

Kevin Kolodziej

09-12-2003, 01:57

The new policy just applies to team mentors (who are going to spend lots of time with the high school students under the auspices of FIRST). It does not ban anyone from participating on a team.

Actually, it does. If someone gets red-flagged in the screening process, I would imagine they would be banned. I am am certain that my screen would come back green, so no, I would not be banned from participating on a FIRST team. But I have absolutely no plans to hand over my SSN, so in the eyes of FIRST, I will not have complied with the new policy. Therefore unless something else is said or done, if I participate on the team, FIRST will find (when they get around to my team for auditing) that I had an imcomplete submission and then they will come after me.

What do you suggest I do? And giving my SSN is not an acceptable answer.

Kev

jneumiller

09-12-2003, 07:36

I am adamantly opposed to mentor background checks. As Ben Franklin said, "If people are willing to trade a little bit of freedom for a little more safety, then they don't deserve freedom or safety". As already stated, who decides what is acceptable and unacceptable? What are the "criteria"? What about someone that smokes cigarettes, isn't that a bad influence? If sex offenders are their concern, then go look then go match the mentor list to the public list and be done with it. I know I will pass the check, but many people here are missing the point.
Most people connected with FIRST are idealists to some extent trying to make the world a better place. This for me is a big step backward. I will not voluntarily submit to a background check and if some "authority-whoever that is" asks me to leave, then so be it.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty

Brian...

You brought up the spectre of Benjamin Franklin...and I wish I had done so myself. It sets up a much more cogent argument than the frog analogy that I used in an earlier post.

I'm surprised, shocked, disappointed that FIRST (everybody happy I didn't call it US FIRST?) hasn't been paying attention to this forum and at least attempt to put our concerns to rest.

My father was an elementary school teacher for well over 20 years (second career) during which he became a union rep for his district. During those years I recall him having to help teachers that were accused by students of improprieties. Sometimes they were valid and the teachers were deep sixed, other times the teachers were accused by troubled students who fabricated incidents. In either case, I'm sure that in both cases these teachers had been through a background investigation process. It doesn't matter...maybe we need to get the "pre-cogs" taking a peek at our souls.

In the past years, I have encouraged our mentors to avoid the pitfalls mentioned by FIRST in some of their documentation which deals with student contact. Don't put yourself into a situation where you can be accused of doing something wrong. We don't drive students home...we don't work one on one with students behind closed doors....we police ourselves and expect the school adminstrators to back us up.

Our team's dilemma is this...the overwhelming majority of our team's mentors are Dept of Defense civilian and military employees. We already have been through a much more thorough process that has granted us the appropriate levels of security clearance. These investigations delve deeply into our pasts and the fact that we're still employed, doing good things for the country and FIRST (see, I am trainable) should be proof enough that we're worthy of working with our team's students. I am deeply disturbed that FIRST and even some of the folks with the counter viewpoint are trying to use the "what do you have to hide?" argument to twist arms in order to comply.

I, along with my team of highly effective mentors, have nothing to hide but having polled the troops they feel like this invasion of privacy isn't worth it. We'd like to continue our association with FIRST and our team, but I believe we've had a line in the sand drawn in front of the door. Unless something "gives" here, we have no option other than to walk across it.

See y'all on the high ground.

Jim

Katie Reynolds

09-12-2003, 08:37

As for students that are 18 or 19, you are still students and not mentors. Once you are no longer a student at the school and you return to help THEN you become a mentor. This is common sense.

I'm still waiting for this to be cleared up. I'm not trying to look at every single angle and totally shoot FIRST down, I'm just going by what I see. FIRST says "A Team Mentor is defined as any adult, 18 or older, who works directly with youth on a FIRST Robotics Competition or FIRST LEGO League team."(The Policy (http://www.usfirst.org/volunteers/youthprotect/)) As I'm seeing it, this means that anyone who is over 18 years of age needs to have a background check. Think about it: Yeah, I'm still a high school student but I am 18 years old. I still have contact with minors that are 14, 15, 16, 17 years old. What's to say that a student who is 18 will act any differently than someone the same age who is out of high school. The law is the law. Once you are 18, you are legally an adult - high school student or not.

Hopefully, FIRST will give us some clarification on this soon.

Andrew

09-12-2003, 09:28

Actually, it does. If someone gets red-flagged in the screening process, I would imagine they would be banned.
That's not what I posted. If you do not have routine contact with the HS students under the auspices of FIRST, you do not have to submit to the back-ground check.

Even if you are "red-flagged," it is the call of the team leader as to what capacity you can continue to contribute.

I am am certain that my screen would come back green, so no, I would not be banned from participating on a FIRST team.

How can you be certain if you don't know the criteria by which you will be assessed? Even if you've led a perfect life, who's to say that misinformation about you hasn't filtered into the database?

Gabriel

09-12-2003, 10:52

Actually, it does. If someone gets red-flagged in the screening process, I would imagine they would be banned. I am am certain that my screen would come back green, so no, I would not be banned from participating on a FIRST team. But I have absolutely no plans to hand over my SSN, so in the eyes of FIRST, I will not have complied with the new policy. Therefore unless something else is said or done, if I participate on the team, FIRST will find (when they get around to my team for auditing) that I had an imcomplete submission and then they will come after me.

What do you suggest I do? And giving my SSN is not an acceptable answer.

Kev

Actually, as the policy makes clear, if your team was audited by FIRST and they discovered that you hadn't complied with the policy they would disqualify the whole team and refer you to the "authorities" whatever that means.

I know that there is very strong objection to this policy here, but is anyone telling FIRST? For all we know, they think we're happily complying with their demands. What should we do to make FIRST aware of our discontent and get this policy changed or revoked?

jneumiller

09-12-2003, 11:15

Actually, as the policy makes clear, if your team was audited by FIRST and they discovered that you hadn't complied with the policy they would disqualify the whole team and refer you to the "authorities" whatever that means.

I know that there is very strong objection to this policy here, but is anyone telling FIRST? For all we know, they think we're happily complying with their demands. What should we do to make FIRST aware of our discontent and get this policy changed or revoked?

Gabriel:

We've contacted FIRST...and it appears that this is going to be a hard and fast requirement for the short term. I would imagine that the more loudly we rats squeak, the more like this will get resolved one way or another.

My advice....if you have a problem with this, let your team leader know your concerns and the impacts. We've already let our team leader know that we will significantly reduce our participation in the effort based on this additional requirement. For the past three years, the mentors I represent have been up to their elbows in the robot every day for six weeks. I don't see that happening this year unless a number of heads come out of their fourth "point of contact." (Any former paratroopers besides me listening?)

See you on the high ground!

Jim

Yan Wang

09-12-2003, 12:10

As a student, I am not affected by this much. But for the adults which I have to work with, I suspect they will feel the same way as most adults here have felt. Giving away one's SSN and being checked for background will just make the adults think that FIRST is too ideal and intrusive. Something similar happened here to a track coach this year, who had drug charges and jail time more than a decade ago. So what? Since then, he's become respected and reformed. When the school district brought up his past again, it was an embarassment and he is currently suing the school district. FIRST, like the school district, shouldn't need to look into someone's past because it's the present and not past that matters.

As Dave mentioned, many companies might not allow employees to give out information concerning work. When I read this, I thought about something else related to companies. If that adult has been working at a reputable company for years, then he/she has already been screened enough to be accepted by that company and acknowledged to have a suitable background or current state of mind/behavior to be working with other people in an environment similar to that of robotics. Why ask them to go through a screening process again? The only case with which I see a useful purpose for screening would be for college-student mentors. They would be the most foreign (save the few that lived there) and new to the community. Not that I have anything against any college-student mentors :) And not that I approve of screening at all.

KathieK

09-12-2003, 12:51

As soon as I read the new policy I realized that some adults would object, for whatever reason, to having a background check made.

My immediate concern is that our team leader must collect and submit approximately 30 orders for background checks. That means he must also make approx. 90 telephone calls to their references. All this with the holidays and Kickoff quickly approaching.

And if any of our adults decide not to participate in the checks, that effectively means they cannot be chaperones on our trips, and we are in the process of booking hotel rooms and airfare for them already! The timing of this policy is awful and shoud have been done during the summer in my opinion. Then we could have explained the policy requirements to the adult volunteers before any fundraising was done, committee work begun, and travel plans made.

~Kathie
Adult mentor
Team 173

Madison

09-12-2003, 13:12

With what little respect I have for this policy, I feel like I need to just come out and say that whatever is in my past is none of FIRST's business. I have spoken with team leaders here and they, too, are extremely annoyed by this policy. Particularly, they realize that this policy will do more to place me at risk for future discrimination and doubtful intentions than it will ever do to protect students. Without knowing the criteria they'll use in determining a mentor's eligibility -- something I believe we're entitled to know as a gesture of faith from FIRST -- I can't be sure what result my background check will have, despite having never done anything harmful or illegal (save for a speeding ticket I got in Pennsylvania a few years ago).

It seems like it's plausible that something as simple as speeding tickets, however, might be cause enough for a red flag. The solution for that may be as simple as prohibiting that individual from driving with students, but because confidentiality must be maintained and because only FIRST staff will have access to why someone's been red flagged, it seems that the only information that'll ever filter down to students and parents is that their mentor has been red-flagged -- either because they can't participate any longer, or because they can't participate in the same capacity as before. People, I believe, will assume the worst and I think that's truly a disservice to the amazing people in this organization who do great work everyday.

It's almost ironic that at kickoff last year, FIRST trumpeted a reformed gang member to the masses, showing the power this program has in changing lives, yet now they're making every effort to ensure someone's past can't be left behind. Would FIRST's screening criteria let the same person they were so proud of last year be a mentor this year? I wonder.

Wetzel

09-12-2003, 18:06

Even if you are "red-flagged," it is the call of the team leader as to what capacity you can continue to contribute.

Wrong.

From the "FIRST Youth Protection and Adult Leadership Policy (http://www.usfirst.org/volunteers/youthprotect/first_ypal_nov03.doc)"

Complete reports color coded “green” represent a clear report; reports color coded “red” represent a report that is not clear and will need further review by the Volunteer Resources Manager at FIRST headquarters. A report that is coded red does not mean that a criminal history exists for the individual, or that the person is disqualified – it only indicates that the report requires further review.

If a volunteer report comes back coded red, send an email to “volunteer@usfirst.org” providing FIRST with the name, address, phone number, and team number of the individual who was screened. FIRST will review the report, will follow-up directly with the applicant, and will notify you of whether or not the applicant is eligible to participate as a FIRST Team Mentor. Details of individual reports will not be released to anyone other than the person who was screened, and will only be made available in the instance of an appeal.

FIRST will review the case, then tell the team leader if the adult can participate or not, but not the reason for the redflag or for being turned away. The team leader will not be allowed to see any information that may come up in the search, just that there was a red flag. It does not mean there was even a criminal history! Mayhaps they were just CHARGED with something 10 years ago and proven innocent, but they might still be redflagged because of that.

Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll see you on the high road.

LSevcik

09-12-2003, 18:15

The point is that team leaders don't want to handle peoples's private information like SS #'s or conduct interviews with people given as references. If FIRST wanted to implement this plan it should be everyone entering their own information online with VolunteerSelect.

Andrew

09-12-2003, 18:33

Wrong.

From the "FIRST Youth Protection and Adult Leadership Policy (http://www.usfirst.org/volunteers/youthprotect/first_ypal_nov03.doc)"

FIRST will review the report, will follow-up directly with the applicant, and will notify you of whether or not the applicant is eligible to participate as a FIRST Team Mentor.

Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll see you on the high road.

It says that the person cannot participate as a FIRST team mentor, not that the person cannot participate.

Gabriel

09-12-2003, 18:44

It says that the person cannot participate as a FIRST team mentor, not that the person cannot participate.

How else would they participate then?

Aaron Knight

09-12-2003, 19:02

My own personal 2 cents (not officially representing my team in any fashion):

I am adamantly against this policy for several reasons:
- Cost. There is absolutely no way that teams should be expected to simply eat the cost of $10 per person - many teams have many heavily involved mentors, and this serves to discourage large mentoring groups and/or the recruitment of more mentors into FIRST in general.
- Privacy. I refuse to give a private company that I know little or nothing about my SSN, which is half of what they need to know in order to apply for credit cards in my name and/or max out the ones I have myself. It also follows that it cannot be legally required that I submit it. I've been involved in FIRST for the last two seasons as a student and now am in a mentor role. Social Security Numbers are not advised to be given out by the federal government.
- No Local Control. According to the policy, if there is any question the applicant will be reviewed by FIRST, who has the final say. No local input at all.
- Last year's "reform" example. This was mentioned earlier, what would have happened to last year's stellar example of what FIRST has in terms of effect under the new policy? People change - your past shouldn't hold you accountable for what you are later on. Everyone makes mistakes at one point or another in their life.
- Age. While 18 is the arbitrary "adult" age, students themselves can be as much of a hazard to themselves and others as an adult. Maturity has much more to do with actions.
- Liability. What would happen if someone slipped under the radar? That could blow up in FIRST's face even worse.

I'm not completely against background checks, I just don't believe that their implementation has any rational basis, or that teams should be expected to just turn around and have the money on hand - many teams are having financial trouble as it is - to go through frivolous checks. These sort of checks should be at the discretion of the school whose students are involved, not a national level.

Andrew

09-12-2003, 19:38

How else would they participate then?

Designing the systems, machining the parts, programming the controller, etc.

Madison

09-12-2003, 19:54

Designing the systems, machining the parts, programming the controller, etc.

...locked away somewhere far from students.

If someone is red-flagged and later told they can't participate as a mentor, can they still participate on the periphery of a team as this suggests? Is it okay for a red-flagged person to show up once or twice instead of every week? That's acceptable for others and they don't require a background check, so I wonder what risk some people might be taking by undergoing the check.

Mr. Van

09-12-2003, 20:21

Ok. First and foremost - This policy is to protect FIRST - the organization. It is written carefully to protect FIRST. I believe that a better protection would have been a waiver, but in the aftermath of any problem (i.e. sexual misconduct) the outcry of "how could FIRST have prevented this???!!!" would lead to this sort of check.

Here is my problem: As a "Team Leader", FIRST is asking me to take personal information, and check references. Upon what basis do I evaluate these references or their responses? Does this make me responsible if something does happen? I do not want to be in the position where I am doing reference checks on volunteers, mentors and especially parents - who am I to do this?

Our team has 3 "coaches", about 7 volunteer engineers, 10 or so parents and probably 5 students who are 18. I am the only one who is exempt from the screening and reference check process. Cost to the team for the checks: $250. Oh, and the matter of 72 phone calls to be made by me in my spare time.

If FIRST needs to protect itself, that's fine. It just shouldn't do it on the backs of those of us who volunteer our time and already work so hard to make our teams the best they can be.

How are other "Team Leaders" dealing with this?

-Joseph Vanderway
Coach, Team 599

Gabriel

09-12-2003, 21:06

Designing the systems, machining the parts, programming the controller, etc.

But wouldn't students be participating in those things? If volunteers are doing things completely out of sight of students doesn't that defeat the purpose of FIRST?

Personally I don't think FIRST is making the distinction you're making. According to the Mentoring Guide "Every adult on a FIRST team must consider themselves a mentor" -- its the first sentence after the introduction.

sanddrag

10-12-2003, 00:04

See my post here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=199756&postcount=7)

Andy Baker

10-12-2003, 23:50

(warning, this is a long post... bail out now if you don't want to wade through it)

This policy has some very bad things about it and a few good things.

Here are the good:
1. This is a general effort for teams to officially attempt to protect children from people who should not be mentors. If the result of this program protects one child from a terrible act, then it has much worth, even at the inconvenience of many.

2. This program does put the responsibility on the public school systems to "police their own" volunteers (you just need to read the fine print to find it). FIRST is just wanting to see that public schools are being responsible and screening their "coaches" who are acting as mentors. If you notice, FIRST has made an exception that people who are either teachers at a public school, employed at the school, or volunteers at the school. If a school screens these people and can simply show to FIRST that they have done this, then it seems that FIRST is happy.

For instance, Kokomo High School screened me years ago through a painless process by using my name and Indiana driver's licence number. All sports team coaches go through the same thing.

Now... the negative things are big also:

1. By implementing this program, it seems to me that FIRST has now made themselves more responsible for student protection than they were without an official program. In the past, I can easily see that the responsibility is on the school... but since FIRST has started this policy, then they have to police and enforce it to make it have worth. Since it is pretty much impossible for FIRST to police and enforce this policy, then they are leaving themselves open for litigation if something bad would take place on a team which was allowed to compete but did not comply with the policy. Now, FIRST is gonna have to be the "bad guy" by punishing teams who don't adhere to the policy.

2. Teams who are not associated with public schools are going to have to do alot of work through VolunteerSelect. Team leaders are going to need to ask for references from people that might have already been on the team for many years, with is a slap in the face to these long-time FIRSTers. Most likely, these teams have already taken care of their own and done simple checks (most teams do this), but this effort will not be recognized by FIRST. This is unfortuneate.

3. FIRST is trying to do these screens with SS#'s. People have the right not to give them, and FIRST will probably not get good screening without them, so there is an endless loop of futility.

4. FIRST has no way to check to see if teams are complying. A team may only put in 1/2 of their mentor to the check (only the mentors who agree to give their SS#'s) and FIRST has no good way to know who the omitted people are.

5. Once a team leader completes the process and dutifully submits all of their teammate mentors for checks, then they will get results back. Most results will be "green", and possibly there will be a reply where a mentor is "red flagged". The team leader will not know the details of why this person is "red flagged" (DUI 10 years ago?, murder?, jay walking?, etc.). Who will know... well, FIRST will know. Do they need to know? no. Does local administration (principal, company president, etc.) or team leadership need to know? probably yes. But, from what I can gather right now, the only people who will see the detailed results are FIRST management.

All in all, I think that FIRST is going too far with requiring that all teams should do this. They should provide information and resources for teams to do it (like through VolunteerSelect), and then have teams sign off by saying that they, the teams, are responsible for screening their own mentors. Their "requirements" and mandatory screening are simply going too far.

Andy B.

jneumiller

11-12-2003, 08:29

Gabriel

11-12-2003, 13:48

I was speaking to another team leader about this the other day. He said that if he were to simply refuse to follow the policy and as a result, get his team thrown out of the FIRST competition, his mentors, school and community would support him all the way.

I think that the same is almost certainly true with my team.

I'm not saying this is a good idea, it isn't, but it goes to show that EVERYBODY involved in FIRST, mentors, students, sponsors, everyone except FIRST itself realizes how bad this policy is.

MarcusF

11-12-2003, 14:53

I think now that this is now in place there is almost no way it can go away. Its is crossing a line, if they were to just take this policy away and something did happen, first would be in difficult situation they would be blamed because they had a program in place and it got taken away. Although many of us don’t like the way they are presenting this I doubt in one month they can come up with a system that still protects the kids and satisfies the adults.

Dave Campbell

12-12-2003, 10:57

[QUOTE=Andy Baker

2. This program does put the responsibility on the public school systems to "police their own" volunteers (you just need to read the fine print to find it). FIRST is just wanting to see that public schools are being responsible and screening their "coaches" who are acting as mentors. If you notice, FIRST has made an exception that people who are either teachers at a public school, employed at the school, or volunteers at the school. If a school screens these people and can simply show to FIRST that they have done this, then it seems that FIRST is happy.

All in all, I think that FIRST is going too far with requiring that all teams should do this. They should provide information and resources for teams to do it (like through VolunteerSelect), and then have teams sign off by saying that they, the teams, are responsible for screening their own mentors. Their "requirements" and mandatory screening are simply going too far.

Andy B.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you completely. It will be difficult though now for FIRST to be proven negligent in any lawsuit, which from my simple understanding of law, is most important. With a policy in place, they have pushed the burden to the team leaders who will be named along with schools and sponsors in any lawsuit. Most schools probably have a process in place, whether or not it is used by teams. Team leaders should consult with schools and legal counsel if they are concerned. CYA!

Stu Bloom

13-12-2003, 10:46

... As such, it is "Dave Lavery - NASA employee", not "Dave Lavery - private citizen," that is being asked to submit to a background check. My organization has not authorized this, nor authorized any of us to share any personnel-related information (including about ourselves) with any third party organization. And without explicit directions to the contrary from the NASA General Council, I do not see how I will ever provide such information.
How can anyone disagree with Dave ?? :)

Well I don't!

However it seems to me that FIRST is really opening up a can of worms with this new policy. I think it is easy to understand the points made by those on all sides of this arguement. And I personally feel that this new policy is really about protecting FIRST from the potential liability for not addressing this issue at all. The problem is that FIRST can (and probably should, for their own protection) prohibit anyone from participating if they do not comply. I don't see how the program can continue to grow and thrive under those conditions (prohibiting NASA volunteers ?? THAT'S absurd!). It's a tough problem and I am glad I don't have to make those decisions, unfortunately I don't have any good answers either ... :confused:

sanddrag

13-12-2003, 12:40

I haven't though into this too much but wouldn't a nicely writted waiver accomplish the same goal for FIRST? Put the responsibility of child safety on the team instead of FIRST. Seriously, why is FIRST taking responsibility for this? What if a kid's finger got sucked into the provided gearbox and ripped off? Would FIRST be responsible then? What if at a competition a couple students were carrying the robot, one tripped over the field entrance bar, and broke his neck, or hit his head on some other part of the field and got brain damage, maybe a coma even? It would not take much for this to happen to a person. Who's responsible then? There are a million other things concerning child saftey than adult predators.

Also, did anyone read how they are going to randomly audit teams and perhaps ban them from the competition if they are not truthfully naming all their helping adults. That scares me. Because say your team leader does not have a check conducted on everyone who is supposed to have one. And then they come to your pit and ask who helped you build the robot. Then a student naturally says all these people, and then FIRST goes and checks how many people got screened, see it isn't enough, and then bans the team from competition. Then the mentor and everyone else on the team gets mad at the student who told FIRST all the people who help. What a disaster!

EStokely

15-12-2003, 01:19

Normal disclaimer, any comments real or imagined are from me, not my teams mentor/coach/teacher.

I will try hard to not comment on how I see this new policy I only want to ask a question or perhaps make an observation.

Who, specifically from those viewing this thread, is going to choose to not be a mentor because of the policy ,please don't loose this in the SSN issue or the security clearance issue. Who is simply going to *refuse* to take part in any FIRST mandated screening policy?

If I am reading the thread correctly FIRST needs to start finding ALOT more mentors.

(For what its worth I am asking my adult mentors to comply and will respect their choice if they decline. The team will need to decide how to handle the issue and possible consequences if mentors refuse. Also, I am cleared by a public school system in Washington. But I would , myself, jump through the hoops FIRST is asking if I was not already cleared.)

Steve Yasick

15-12-2003, 08:46

"Are there any exemptions for people screened through other processes?
The following is the only exemption: Adults who have been screened by a public school system to work with youth are exempt from the background screening and reference check process. (Those exempted and screened by a public school system may include currently employed teachers, other currently employed school employees, and current school volunteers.) The team leader should maintain documentation that the mentors have been screened by the school."

"What screening documentation does FIRST require?
FIRST does not require that you send the documentation to FIRST, nor do you need to bring it to events. FIRST will conduct random team audits to determine compliance and will require documentation at that time."

Both Quotes are directly from the FIRST YOUTH PROTECTION POLICY FAQ which I received today.

It looks to me like the screening we do through school will do the trick, be free for my team and keep FIRST happy.

Have a good holiday!

Steve Yasick
Team 85

Stu Bloom

15-12-2003, 09:32

"...It looks to me like the screening we do through school will do the trick, be free for my team and keep FIRST happy...

Good point Steve ... maybe that is a great "compromise" solution. If our schools already have a method/policy in place for screening volunteers we (mentors) could all volunteer/submit to that ...

Bob Steele

15-12-2003, 10:38

In reviewing the FAQ for this item I have read the exemptions for screening.
I see that currently employed teachers and currently employed school employees are exempted (for public schools only) but that the door is open for current school volunteers ... whatever that is...

screening is also defined as: "a web-based process that searches an individuals criminal history."

I believe that if you have a criminal records based screening method, as defined above, already in place for your public school that you may be exempt. For those of us in these schools, we must still pay a fee, similar to that shown in FIRST for these screenings. We have never had a mentor/volunteer pay them so the cost is still born by the organization. The only difference is that we will recieve information back from these and not just a red or green.
We would also have to use the FIRST method for any NEW school volunteers because this only works for current school volunteers...one must assume that current means before the beginning of this year when the system was put into place.

I must agree with many who have indicated that FIRST is just placing another burden on the team leader who is, in most cases, a teacher... FIRST has consistently given little credit to teachers... most of their awards and recognition are for MENTORS, Engineers, volunteers for regional events... no awards or recognition for those leaders and teachers who have put in countless hours working behind the scenes and without whose efforts the program would fail. Nope let's just lump one more program and time on the teacher/ to protect FIRST's liability...

thanks for listening

Bob Steele

15-12-2003, 11:02

One last comment...

The Document on line states:

A background screening and reference checks (sic) must be conducted on any adult electing to participate as a Team Mentor in a FIRST program for the first time. (emphasis added....) A background screening must be conducted every other year for adults returning to participate at (sic) a Team Mentor to ensure that records are current.

This would indicate that reference checks are NOT required for those who have already been a Team Mentor before and that background screening must be done every other year for everyone. FAQ says that All Team Members must be screened. ( I presume that this means student members over the age of 18 must also be screened?) So screening and reference checks are two different things...

I am interpretting this as follows:
No reference checks for anyone except NEW mentors...
Screening for everyone... including student members over 18

I think this is consistent as the team acts as its own reference checks for mentors that have worked before... otherwise we could just put down three mentor names as references and during a meeting say " Does anyone have any objections to this person being a mentor? " none seen he is admitted....

Anyway... any thoughts???

The original document DID say that the checks must be conducted on adults electing to participate as a mentor for the first time... one could interpret that as saying that everyone is grandfathered in... at least for this year

?????

Brian Beatty

15-12-2003, 13:20

Chris Hibner

15-12-2003, 13:45

The Reference program is a complete waste of everyone's time. Who is going to give a name that is going to give a negative reference? Even John Wayne Gacy could have come up with three people to say good things about him( First Lady Rosalyn Carter, for one ). This program is time intensive enough without finding new and imaginative ways to consume more of it.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty

I agree. I could use my teammates as references and they could use me and each other as references creating a big circle of references. It's like the CEO / board of directors circle in big companies in which they vouch for each other and give each other big raises. It doesn't accomplish anything.

Also (somewhat off topic), let's say that I do have something in my past that would disqualify me (I DON'T, by the way), but I have been doing FIRST for 7 years now with only good reactions to my involvement. Would that mean that a mistake from many years ago would trump my obvious rehabilitation - that all of my years of good service do not count any more? That seems kind of wrong. I guess I can see being a little more suspicious of new additions, but what about people that have been doing this for years and haven't done anything to harm a student? That is one of many reasons why I think it is best left up to the teams.

And furthermore, why should I be excluded from the team if I have 5 speeding tickets? I really don't see the logic in that one. (Once again, I DON'T have 5 speeding tickets - but if I did, I would be saying goodbye to all of you).

-Chris

Amanda Morrison

15-12-2003, 14:52

Also (somewhat off topic), let's say that I do have something in my past that would disqualify me (I DON'T, by the way), but I have been doing FIRST for 7 years now with only good reactions to my involvement. Would that mean that a mistake from many years ago would trump my obvious rehabilitation - that all of my years of good service do not count any more?

Very true. What if a WFA winner TP'd a house when they were young and were picked up for it? Does that 'criminal' record make them a bad mentor? No.

From what I can tell, if FIRST just adds a bylaw giving responsibility to each team for their actions and requests a 'code' to follow, i.e. "Please do not have a student in the company of less than two mentors at one time.", this probably wouldn't have to happen, and FIRST would be exempt from responsibility for incidents. If a student accidentally is hurt by the robot in autonomous, that doesn't mean that FIRST is getting phone calls about it.

Stu Bloom

15-12-2003, 15:36

... What if a WFA winner TP'd a house when they were young and were picked up for it?...
Andy B. ... is she talking about you ??? :p

Andrew

16-12-2003, 00:33

And furthermore, why should I be excluded from the team if I have 5 speeding tickets?
-Chris

Actually, it's four (4) speeding tickets for disqualification.

BTW, I lost my automobile registration tag before I could attach it to my license plate. I rushed out to get a replacement, since I didn't want a potential "chargeable traffic offense" to get me kicked out of FIRST...really!

JVN

16-12-2003, 02:20

Andy B. ... is she talking about you ??? :p
She is from the BEATTY team... ;)
No telling what stories she's heard.

Uh oh.

Chris Hibner

16-12-2003, 09:36

Actually, it's four (4) speeding tickets for disqualification.

BTW, I lost my automobile registration tag before I could attach it to my license plate. I rushed out to get a replacement, since I didn't want a potential "chargeable traffic offense" to get me kicked out of FIRST...really!

I believe it says "More than four chargeable traffic offenses...". I interpret "more than" to mean 5 or more. If it is 4 or more, that is even worse.

-Chris

Andrew

16-12-2003, 16:41

I believe it says "More than four chargeable traffic offenses...". I interpret "more than" to mean 5 or more. If it is 4 or more, that is even worse.

-Chris

You know, I actually pulled out the policy before replying to you originally. It goes to show how you miss things when you're tired. It does say "more than four offenses" and not "four offenses" as I had supposed.

Steve Yasick

16-12-2003, 18:12

Here is what we plan to do to at Zeeland to work with the volunteer screening. I think it will be legal and satisfy FIRST

After I made my first post to this thread I took the FAQ's from FIRST to my administration. They didn't want me to handle the FIRST paper so they made a call to FIRST to ask more questions. FIRST directed them to the quote below.

"Are there any exemptions for people screened through other processes?
The following is the only exemption: Adults who have been screened by a public school system to work with youth are exempt from the background screening and reference check process. (Those exempted and screened by a public school system may include currently employed teachers, other currently employed school employees, and current school volunteers.) The team leader should maintain documentation that the mentors have been screened by the school."

Because we use a system of screening here for our volunteers FIRST should be able to exempt our engineers from the process that FIRST has set up.

I hope this helps.

Happy Holidays

Steve Yasick

BillCloyes

16-12-2003, 19:12

I have been reading and rereading the US First “Documentation” on their “Youth Protection Policy.” Not unlike the FRC game rules, the latest update only seems to add to the confusion and not actually clarifies anything. The following items are my thoughts (and like many others in posts above this…represent only my thoughts and no one else…) on one of the more hypocritical instances bound to occur.

I give you fair warning: this by no means a “common sense” approach, but in the “wonderful” world of technicalities, liabilities, and plainly covering one’s behind, one cannot be too careful….

Definition of a “Mentor”

The FIRST policy clearly states that anyone over the age of 18 that will spend more than one time period with the team will need to be screened with the background check and results readily available for audit. This lends to a few additional questions:

* What if mentors cross between teams? Say I am the “team leader” for team A and have a mentor from team B helping (on more than one occasion) my team. Being the team A "team leader", I cannot afford to assume that they have been checked, but ask for copies of the consent form from the “team leader” of team B.

This is only because that as it stands now, that if anything were to happen to anyone on my team, I, the “team leader”, would be held responsible (and liable). According to FIRST, in order to limit my liability (and compliance) I must maintain their information for 3 plus years. It should also be noted that (per FIRST) incomplete information is not acceptable; therefore I will have to have that mentor’s SSN as well.

Using the above as a basis:

* As pointed out in an earlier post, what of the volunteers at the competition events? It makes good sense to have all of them background checked, and information readily available to limit my liability

* What of the judges, the CEO’s and VP’s that FIRST brings in to be amongst the youth and judge the various categories? That would mean that I need all of their SSN and other information.

* And that would even go so far as to include Dean and Woody. But being as strong believers of FIRST as they are, I’m *sure* they won’t have a problem giving their SSN out to the “team leader” from every team.

As a reminder: “team leaders” get to perform their own background checks, no issue with liability there either…

Just some things to think about.
-Bill Cloyes
4th year mentor
677 Team Lead

Dave...

16-12-2003, 23:15

5. Once a team leader completes the process and dutifully submits all of their teammate mentors for checks, then they will get results back. Most results will be "green", and possibly there will be a reply where a mentor is "red flagged". The team leader will not know the details of why this person is "red flagged" (DUI 10 years ago?, murder?, jay walking?, etc.).

For those of you know Arlo Guthrie, how about litterin'? I think there might be some of those 8 × 10 color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back of each one that could be used against me in a court of law :D

Gabriel

16-12-2003, 23:30

For those of you know Arlo Guthrie, how about litterin'? I think there might be some of those 8 × 10 color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back of each one that could be used against me in a court of law :D

I get the feeling that FIRST is going to drag us down to a building in New York City where we'll be injected, inspected, neglected, rejected, and selected.

ChrisH

17-12-2003, 12:34

For those of you know Arlo Guthrie, how about litterin'? I think there might be some of those 8 × 10 color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back of each one that could be used against me in a court of law :D

Only if it's FELONY littering. Ordinary, misdemeanor littering is not a problem :p

Mr. Van

18-12-2003, 14:21

Oh boy...
Now as I think about it, due to the fact that I (as "Team Leader") am collecting and checking references, I am liable if anything "happens". Not FIRST, not my school, but me. Now I'm scared.

Do the Boy Scout "Troup Leaders" have the same situation (where they are clearly legally liable as individuals)? What about Little Leauge Team Managers? Does any other volunteer based organization place liability squarely on group leaders AND make them responsible for doing reference checks?

I'm thinking that our teams need to add "legal advice & council" to our "wish list" from potential sponsors & mentors.

Part of me thinks I'm over-reacting. Then I think that if something were to happen, I haven't a legal leg to stand on - unless I follow the policy to the letter. (And until I get an official notification from FIRST, age 18 means adult, regardless of student status or not.)

Am I wrong here?

-Mr. Van

Steve Yasick

18-12-2003, 15:46

I'm a teacher here in Zeeland. All I can say is this: We don't care how old a person is, if he/she is a registered student at our school, he/she is a student first an 18+ year old kid second. If they do something stupid the school rules would apply. I don't think FIRST wants a background check on a student in a high school.

If you are 18 and out of high school and a volunteer who will have direct contact with students you will need a background check or volunteer screening.

I would encourage all teachers to look at volunteer screening at your school. As I stated before FIRST will except it. In my case my school (not me) will take the responsibility for management of this process and any fees associated with background checks on a “volunteer” engineer.

Take care,

Steve Yasick
Team 85

indieFan

18-12-2003, 16:54

The answer to whether or not an 18 year old student needs to be screened is covered in the following thread.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23144

indieFan

dlavery

20-12-2003, 10:21

A little birdie has told me that some common sense is about to prevail. No one should make any irreversible decisions, or do any unnecessary work, until we hear the final word. Stay tuned.

-dave

-----------------------

14 days to go!!!

JVN

20-12-2003, 13:21

No one should make any irreversible decisions...

Anyone know a good place to have a tattoo removed? :eek:

meaubry

21-12-2003, 09:31

Well, Finally a glimmer of hope. I've been quietly trying to decide just how to handle this issue. It is very difficult to seperate the "overwhelmingly objective arguement of protecting the well being of the students" from the "overwhelming number of privacy, legal, and moral arguments against".

So, after many hours of discussion with my fellow mentors and team leaders I can only conclude;

FIRST should require each team to monitor and maintain their own screening records. FIRST should establish the requirement in broad terms - and then, just as they do with everything else - rely on the GRACIOUS PROFESSIONALISM of each team's leadership to assure compliance.

Perhaps a policy statement is more appropriate, than a requirement that is so specific, yet leaves far too many things undefineable and unenforceable.

As a team leader (from the company side of the partnership, not the school side), I hope and pray the leadership at FIRST comes to there senses and re-thinks the approach they are taking on this subject.

Rich Kressly

21-12-2003, 18:49

Like many in the CD community, I've been following this thread closely. So many good points have been made by some of the most respected names in FIRST. Of all comments that have been made here, Brian Beatty's comments hit closest to home for me. Let's not take steps backwords in the quest to help bring about major cultural change. It's also tough to argue with Ben Franklin's wisdom. Some system may be necessary on some level (local - through schools, perhaps), but let's hope Dave Lavery's birdie comes in the form of the voice of reason - soon.

BillCloyes

22-12-2003, 12:00

It seems more and more likely that something big is coming down from FIRST in the way of a revision for the youth policy.
The links that were given out in the email blasts, (http://www.usfirst.org/volunteers/youthprotect for example) do not seem to be functioning right now (at least not for me...)

Is this currently true for anyone else?

Bill Cloyes
677 Team Lead

Wetzel

22-12-2003, 12:04

Gabriel

22-12-2003, 14:03

Madison

22-12-2003, 18:08

http://www.usfirst.org/volunteers/youthprotect/

FIRST has withdrawn the policy.

Thank goodness. Common sense prevails for a change.

Gabriel

22-12-2003, 19:22

http://www.usfirst.org/volunteers/youthprotect/

FIRST has withdrawn the policy.

Thank goodness. Common sense prevails for a change.

Thank you Dave Lavery, and everyone else who has worked to get this policy changed. FIRST has had some serious growing pains over the years, and this was only one of a series of Incredibly Bad (if perhaps well-meaning) Decisions on their part. Its good to see that TPTB at FIRST do listen to the community, and will put the needs of team leaders and mentors before their legal fears. I am impressed that they reversed this policy. Not every organization is humble enough to do that.

As a community we still need to keep an eye on what's going on in Manchester (in fact two eyes, as often as we can spare them), but its good to see that we can affect change.

Raul

23-12-2003, 10:54

Well, I'm still going to check up on all of you and give Santa Claus the scoop.

Just kidding - have a great holiday!

http://www.exechost.biz/detpage/cd61.gif (http://www.exechost.biz/detpage/idea.html)

RogerR

23-12-2003, 11:43

Well, I'm still going to check up on all of you and give Santa Claus the scoop.

[BIG HONKIN' IMAGE]

Just kidding - have a great holiday!
heck, using google.com, i can get someones home phone and address for free, using just their name and the state they live in. and i can get the same info by putting in thrir home phone....
kinda gives me the jiblies...

George1902

23-12-2003, 12:07

heck, using google.com, i can get someones home phone and address for free, using just their name and the state they live in. and i can get the same info by putting in thrir home phone....
kinda gives me the jiblies...
{sarcasm}

I know what you mean! I saw this book the other day. Just by knowing someone's name you could find their address and their phone number!! I think it was called a phone book.

{/sarcasm}

dez250

23-12-2003, 12:32

heck, using google.com, i can get someones home phone and address for free, using just their name and the state they live in. and i can get the same info by putting in thrir home phone....
kinda gives me the jiblies...

A few monthes ago i was searching with my dad for something, i cant remember off the top of my head, but it was family related. We stumbled upon one page, ill try to refind it, but you could obtain anyones address, phone number, backround search, family history, a few oher things and their [b]SS # for a few bucks. Now come on for $10 someone can obtain all the info needed to steal my identity, now thats scary.[/being serious]

~Mike

Chris Fultz

23-12-2003, 14:10

Madison

23-12-2003, 14:40

As an adult leader and volunteer I am also not a bit 'offended' by the requirement and would be concerned about those who oppose it.

What is there to be concerned about regarding those who've opposed this policy? We are not a greater risk to the participants of FIRST because we opposed this policy. We do not have anything to hide. We do not care less about the students' safety than you do.

I do not participate in church youth groups, so perhaps that's why I can't understand why you've capitalized its importance. It makes you no more or less likely to endanger the safety of a child.

The policy was poorly designed and implemented, obfuscated by muddled language and poor procedures. It offered no assurances for the security of my personal information, aside from the implicit trust in "team leaders." I do not trust team leaders and have sufficient reason not to. I do not trust the company that FIRST chose to undertake these background checks, Choicepoint and its subsidiaries, because I have seen ample evidence that suggests their business practices are unscrupulous and questionable. Without seeing documented, explicit reasons as to why someone might be red-flagged or labeled as a "potential felon," despite having no criminal history, I will not trust their determination about people -- whether I've known them for years or just met them for the first time.

Pierson

23-12-2003, 15:03

I just receievd the withdrawl e-mail... It sounded like a good policy... But it needed more work to make it better.

JVN

23-12-2003, 15:08

I do hope that you're not trying to insinuate that we have something to hide or that we are a greater risk to the students in FIRST than you, as a church youth group leader.Jeez M...
I don't think that's what he said at all...

Are you genuinely offended, or just picking a fight?

We all have our opinions on what is best for "the children" and for this program. Chris offerred his. Thank you Chris.

It just goes to show that this policy was not UNIVERSALLY hated as some make it out to be. FIRST was trying to do something positive here, many of us disagree with their attempt, but we should recognize that... the people behind this policy were (likely, I don't actually KNOW ;))acting with the best of intentions.

John

Andy Baker

24-12-2003, 00:35

I am ALL FOR screening - it should be required by evey school that has their name on a team, and every corporation that sponsors them. As an adult leader and volunteer I am also not a bit 'offended' by the requirement and would be concerned about those who oppose it.

Chris, I think that you might be missing the point behind the protest.

I agree that all teams should screen their mentors. Schools should do it. Companies should do it. Protecting children should be top priority.

However...

Most people's objections to this are with HOW the program was being implemented, not the idea behind it.

In my opinion...

FIRST should not be the ones screening our teams' mentors. This is our job as team leaders. FIRST should stick to creating a great game and kit for us to play with. They should stick to hosting exciting events. Why should there be an added level of bureacracy at FIRST to perform searches and pass judgement on people they don't even know? Do they think that we are not capable of doing this ourselves?

Hypothetically, if there is a mentor on my team with some questionable offenses, it is up to the administrators of my team to determine if that person should be a mentor or not... not FIRST.

I applaud FIRST for being concerned about this issue. They should continue with the program and PROMOTE screening and assist teams by directing them how to screen their mentors. They can cite examples and provide guidelines.. but not require that teams do it by their canned method.

Andy B.

Bill Beatty

25-12-2003, 10:18

I share all the concerns that many of you have voiced here about this screening process, however my concerns go beyond what has been stated. Unfortunately most folks think that a rule or law that doesn't directly adversely affect them is not a problem.

Maybe we should require all the individuals who are red flagged in these computer data bases to wear and display a "Scarlet Letter" for the rest of their lives, as that would be much less expensive............

Mr. Bill

Chris Fultz

26-12-2003, 14:42

jneumiller

11-01-2004, 09:54

Here is what we plan to do to at Zeeland to work with the volunteer screening. I think it will be legal and satisfy FIRST

FIRST directed them to the quote below.

"Are there any exemptions for people screened through other processes?
The following is the only exemption: Adults who have been screened by a public school system to work with youth are exempt from the background screening and reference check process. (Those exempted and screened by a public school system may include currently employed teachers, other currently employed school employees, and current school volunteers.) The team leader should maintain documentation that the mentors have been screened by the school."

Steve Yasick

Does anyone else see the faulty reasoning with this type of policy?

I've said before, that I'm an employee of DoD and subject to periodic reinvestigations on a very rigid schedule. I submit to background checks that are standardized across the country. I go through the same investigation that someone in Hawaii or Guam goes through as the "checklist" is standard. How many of you that have been cleared by the high and mighty "public school" systems say that? Your background check is probably based at best, on a statewide standard, but more likely that not on a district basis.

I feel that it is asinine for FIRST to grant the public school empire to be the only group exempt from a centralized background investigation program, if they wind up deciding to go that route.

See you on the high ground!

Jim

jneumiller

11-01-2004, 10:06

I just receievd the withdrawl e-mail... It sounded like a good policy... But it needed more work to make it better.

Have to disagree with you if you found much good in the Youth Protection Policy...

What happened to the days where adults played the role of adults and children played the role of children? When I was growing up...any adult on the street could get my attention if I had my hands in the wrong cookie jar. I listened to and obeyed folks that were not my parents or had not gone through an invasive background check to interact with me. Those adults that were temporarily "in charge" of me for safety and discipline also protected me against threats....to include sexual predators. When I was in the care of my parents...that was their job.

In dealing with students/children in the FIRST environment, we are working with 14-18 year olds. These students are well aware by now that there's a threat out there, with them as the target. Whether or not there are more sickos out on the street than there were 30 years ago when I was out there in the "target zone" remains to be seen. These teenagers are savvy and smart enough to know if there's a potential problem with an adult. If something happens, then they go to a mentor and make a complaint. If the complaint winds up to have some merit, bounce the trouble maker and drive on.

If I'm minimizing or making light of the problem, then I think the FIRST has to come up with "for instances" that somehow backup this issue. What's happened in the past within the FIRST community? Or are they simply reacting to other organizations that have had problems and trying to learn from their mistakes...hoping to cover their butts?

Wow, that's alot of ink. Think about it kiddies!

Jim

jneumiller

11-01-2004, 10:23

As my post says, I am all for screening. Maybe not FIRST's way - I think there were some real issues with the policy - but some type of adult screening. Our host school requires it, so the team was already covered. My read on the FIRST policy was that if a public high school team was already screening, their existing process could continue.

I was not trying to say that a church group was any better (or any worse) than FIRST volunteers. I was trying to make the point that most large organized groups have required screening of adult leaders for several years - Little League, YMCA, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Churchs and on and on - it is surprising that FIRST is just now starting.

My intent was not to offend or insult anyone - sorry if I did.

If we were truly dealing with children in this issue, my feelings would probably be much different. The audience we're trying to protect here are young adults from the ages of 14-18. They're almost ready to enter that cold, cruel world we as adults operate in. Some of the responsibility needs to shift towards them when it comes to figuring out when situations are wrong and how to avoid them.

I believe that FIRST is succumbing to pressure from that group of people, collectively known as lawyers, to cover their butts before something comes to light. It is inevitable that when you put men, women, boys and girls together something "seamy" is going to happen. Ask the US military fighting the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistann....one would think that they'd have other things on their minds....but have heard of pregnancies rising in those areas of operations. The school personnel, mentors and students share a responsibility in maintaining an atmosphere that prevents "bad things" from happening to "good people."

I'll use the recent news headline about a 49 year old female teacher seducing and engaging in terrible conduct with an 11 year old male student as an example. Text to follow:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- A 49-year-old music teacher has been charged with having a sexual relationship with a boy she first seduced when he was 11 years old, authorities said.

Carol Flannigan, a teacher at Rolling Green Elementary in Boynton Beach, was arrested Wednesday on six charges, including two counts of capital sexual battery on a child under 12. Authorities said the relationship lasted for 19 months.

Flannigan had developed a close relationship with the boy and his family after he took her music class, inviting him and two younger brothers to sleep over at her Boca Raton home.

The stepmother of the boy, now 13, asked Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office to investigate after finding sexually suggestive text messages on his cell phone Tuesday.

After interviewing the boy, investigators listened in on a phone call the boy made to Flannigan in which she told him to continue lying about their relationship, according to an arrest report.

The Department of Children & Families had investigated Flannigan in 2002, after her husband told a marriage counselor she had described feelings she had when she kissed a 12-year-old boy, according the report.

DCF and police concluded there was no indication of sexual abuse or inappropriate touching and closed that case after the boy said he had "tap kissed" Flannigan but had not felt uncomfortable, the report said.

Law enforcement officials were unable to confirm whether the boy in the DCF probe was the same as the one at the focus of Wednesday's arrest.

The accused teacher had undoubtedly passed through background checks in her school position....but guess what? She still was able to inappropriately interact with a student 35+ years her junior. Who's to say that she wasn't an adult mentor with a Lego League team...that would be the approving authority for YOUR mentor application to work with students?

Kinda makes you think. Why can't we adults simply assume the leadership roles, students take the follower/learner/(and of course teacher role for us old people) and lets get back on track and make the world a better place through recognizing science and technology?

See you on the high ground!

Jim