Volunteer Screening?

[dez250]

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]

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

[Steve W]

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.

[Anarkissed]

Originally Posted by Steve W

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.

[Katie Reynolds]

Originally Posted by Steve W

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) 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.

[dlavery]

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). 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 !!!!!!

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by dlavery

27 days to go !!!!!!

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

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by dlavery

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). 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.

[Gadget470]

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.

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by dlavery

... 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 ...

[sanddrag]

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!

[Brian Beatty]

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

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Brian Beatty

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]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

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]

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

... 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 ???