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.

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 :(

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.

Fingerprints
 

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

Backround Checks
 

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.

Re: Backround Checks
 

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

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

Re: Re: Backround Checks
 

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).

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

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.

<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....

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?

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.