Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andy Baker
(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.
Andy B.
|
Andy:
I was thinking about this yesterday afternoon as I was driving over to my team's high school. What the controversy is all about is this:
What is more important? My right to privacy or the imagined problem/threat to a child on my team's safety? As I'm a volunteer, I feel that my past performance over my three years participation, the fact that I'm periodically investigated by the Defense Investigative Service to maintain my clearance, and the fact that I am myself a parent involved in an activity my child is participating in should be good enough. I really doubt that any series of checks that FIRST or the contracted "security service" does will be more invasive than the ones DIS conducts for clearance adjudication.
To me this is something like the alleged security procedures implemented at our nation's airports. I think the press has plainly pointed out that the system is certainly not fail safe. For me to travel on an aircraft today, I must submit to the nonsense...but that's not the same with FIRST. I'm a volunteer. I'm giving my time and efforts...basically with nothing in return.
Who is going to forward to FIRST the concerns being outlined here in this and other forums regarding the new policies.
Something that came up in the meeting yesterday was the ill-timing of this directive. Most teams have already ponied up their money (for us, 9000) and started lining up sponsors. For us to back out now....will look very bad.
I've rambled enough....not feeling well. Must be the Nyquil talking.
See you on the high ground!
Jim