[Madison]

After having had the opportunity to read over the guidelines in more detail, there are several questions I have regarding the implications of this action.

Clearly, this measure is being taken to protect FIRST from liability -- with protection for children being a consequence rather than a cause. My feeling is that, in the event that a mentor should harm a child, FIRST will have absolved itself of responsibility by indicating that it made an effort into enacting protections. The effectiveness and reliability of those protections isn't relevant -- legally speaking.

Now that FIRST has demonstrated some oversight over its teams, what precedent does this set regarding FIRST's involvement in other affairs of individual teams? Can FIRST be held liable for claims of discrimination because of the actions of a single team or team member? If a team from Tennessee is going to the Atlanta regional and decides that it will not accept black students as members, will FIRST become legally accountable for that action? If so, will there be, in place for the 2004 season, a system of sharing grievances with FIRST so as to keep them apprised of potentially litigious situations that may happen on teams? Or, as it seems, is this step by FIRST like I and others have mentioned -- little more than a self-protection with a positive public relations spin?

Under the heading, "Team Leader Response in the event of a report of sexual abuse," the text reads, "It is important that you not tell anyone other than the Volunteer Resource Manager for the FIRST organization or the child protective services agency about allegations of abuse. If the allegations cannot be substantiated, you could be sued for defamation of character."

So, in short, a team leader can make no effort to corroborate, confirm, nor deny a participating student's allegations of sexual abuse -- but if those allegations are later found to be erroneous, the team leader can be held responsible and sued for defamation. That makes very little sense and certainly doesn't seem to me like it would foster a team leader to be understanding, compassionate and respectful of the student making such an accusation. In fact, it seems that quite the opposite is true and that the threat of litigation against the team leader would be enough to make them very wary of taking students seriously regarding this matter.

To add confusion, the next subheading, "Team Leader Reporting Responsibilities," reads, "People are often concerned about being sued for reporting child abuse. You are not required to know for certain that a child has been abused. All that the law requires is that you have a reasonable suspicion and are reporting in “good faith.” When these requirements are met, all states provide immunity from liability for child abuse reporters."

So, FIRST, which is it? Can team leaders by held liable or not? Of course, this completely ignores the process of reporting abuse by team leaders and offers little recourse to students should that happen.

Further down, under "Additional Resources," we find, "Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has kindly made its materials on child abuse prevention available to participants in the FIRST program."

I am not clear on the benefits found in working side by side with an organization (The Boy Scouts of America) that actively and openly promotes discrimination against homosexuals as a matter of policy. This is not something to broadcast from the rooftops, but something to be ashamed of, as far as I'm concerned.

The Boy Scouts of America has clearly demonstrated its inability to make informed decisions about the safety of its participants by implementing a discriminatory policy regarding homosexuality. It operates under assumptions garnered from bad- or no-science and thus, if the protections afforded to FIRST participants are based on the system used by the Boy Scouts of America, I have very little faith in the effectiveness this will have in enacting true protection. But again, true protection is a side-effect rather than a motivating factor, it seems.

Furthermore, given the lack of clarity provided regarding exactly what constitutes a "red flag" on a person's background check, I am very suspicious of what policies, procedures and assumptions have been borrowed from the Boy Scouts of America.

I am very interested in seeing FIRST disavow itself of any cooperation or involvement with the Boy Scouts of America in all regards, as well as with any other organizations that actively promote intolerance and baseless discrimination.

Further along in the document, as other people have mentioned, there are many vague references to who should require a background check and who is considered a mentor. I'd like clarification regarding the extent to which FIRST is liable should a one-time visitor to a team commit an offense versus the liability of the same offense being committed by a dedicated team member. I'd like clarification regarding exactly what level of participation is required before someone's consider a team member over a special visitor.

On page 9, the policy reads, "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."

Is the screening process entirely contingent upon the team leaders to provide information about screening results, or will FIRST have oversight regarding this as well? It is conceivable that, without an additional layer of oversight provided by FIRST staff, a team leader could withhold a "red flagged" background check. It seems overwhelming, though, for a few individuals on FIRST's staff to oversee information about thousands of mentors, however.

I do not see this as being a remotely effective means of accomplishing anything regarding increased safety of FIRST participants and am considerably upset at this turn of events. Of particular note is the inadequacy of the explanations provided regarding what constitutes an ineligible participant and what data, theories and ideas are being implemented by VolunteerSelect with regard to indicators of potential danger.