Adult Leader App Rejected And Placed In Ineligible Volunteer File

[jr56]

Your unit's COR (chartered organizational representative) has the authority to approach the council and find out what is going on.

Have them do so, if you want this individual to have any interaction with your unit.

[skeptic]

In today's litigious culture, it is likely some of these decisions are simply CYA related.  While we may not agree, from the National perspective, there could be enough concern to err on the side of caution.  Of course, we are generally not privy to details in these situations, as should be the case.

[lepzid]

I am of the attitude that if National says "No", Im good with that.  It does conflict with the parents being able to view and be involved.  This is the only reason why I am looking for clarification in Scout policy before approaching the applicant who has asked for assistance.

[Gone]

I am of the attitude that if National says "No", Im good with that.  It does conflict with the parents being able to view and be involved.  This is the only reason why I am looking for clarification in Scout policy before approaching the applicant who has asked for assistance.

 

Not sure what assistance the unit can provide. This is between the applicant and BSA. I'd bow out and let the applicant handle it.

[fred johnson]

@@lepzid is getting good advice.  Remove emotions.  Escalate it to the institutional head and/or the council.  Let them tell you the boundaries you can work within.

 

IMHO, this exposes the built in contradiction.  Parents camp and help and drive scouts to camp.  But "parents" are not reference checked and not trained.  Only leaders.  

[lepzid]

Please note: I dont have emotions, so they weren't involved.

[Rick_in_CA]

I agree this is primarily between the applicant and the BSA.

 

One thing to remember though, mistakes are made on background checks. A coworker once had a background check for a job come back with multiple felonies that were committed by someone else with the same name, in a different state. Luckily the company followed the law and told him what the background check said (unfortunately many don't and you have no idea a bad background check is why they didn't call you back after that great interview). He was able to challenge the findings and clear his name (and even got the job).

 

Most background checks are done by the lowest bidder, and you often get what you paid for. If the parent in question doesn't know, he needs to follow up and find out what the background check says.

[PA Scoutmaster]

@@lepzid is getting good advice.  Remove emotions.  Escalate it to the institutional head and/or the council.  Let them tell you the boundaries you can work within.

 

IMHO, this exposes the built in contradiction.  Parents camp and help and drive scouts to camp.  But "parents" are not reference checked and not trained.  Only leaders.  

 

In PA, a new law is requiring background checks for all adults with access to youth in any capacity (scouting, church groups, sports, etc). There is still some interpretation going on, but the latest is that if a parent attends an outing, or drives to an outing, we need state police background checks as well as an FBI fingerprint check. The FBI check can be omitted if the person has lived in the state for the last 10 years. On the plus side, they just announced that they won't charge for the checks going forward. 

 

There is another thread about this topic in the politics section. 

[lepzid]

Per BSA, National's CBC is performed by LexisNexis.

 

Thanks again for info so far, still lookong for any actual policy regarding the conflict.

[5yearscouter]

Unit leader MIGHT be able to get something out of the Scout exec.

Committee chair MIGHT be able to get something.

COR MIGHT be able to get something.

Institution head or Executive officer of the Chartering organization SHOULD be able to get something out of it.

Person involved should contact local council Scout executive and ask the catch 22 question themselves and get any answer in writing.  If as a parent they are NOT allowed to be around your unit and your scouts, including their son on their son's scouting activities, then the unit can't or at least shouldn't take on the youth as a member unless some other adult (other parent, grandparent etc) can step in as their guardian on scout activities.

[packsaddle]

Here's the thing: the OP mentioned in the first line a "financial type crime". What kind of financial crime warrants banning someone's presence as a parent? If this person had been convicted and spent prison time for murder or some other kind of really violent crime I could see it...but money? I'm just curious about what "sever all ties" really means and under what circumstances?

[Stosh]

Financial crime could mean bank robbery.

[Gone]

Whether felony or misdemeanor the answer lies with BSA. They must have a reason. Our unit has only had one person turned down by BSA and he knew it going in that it was likely. He accepted it, stayed away from events but supported his scout until he (the scout) elected to pursue football over scouts. Never had a problem with either.

[lepzid]

Financial crime could mean bank robbery.

 

Per application and a followup email from applicant to me, it was "forging a financial instrument" (i.e. theft via bad checks), it was also about 15 years ago. 

 

Interestingly enough, a DUI was also disclosed. I dont think the DUI disqualified the applicant because another adult app also had DUI and was approved with no problem.

 

I asked the applicant to restrain from immediately replying so they could do it with a cool head.  My main concern is that if National said "sever all ties" and policy is "parents can view all" where is the line for this person.  Yes, I understand its for the applicant to find out for himself, in his case.  I'm trying to figure it out so we also have the correct information.  I thought I would give this forum a try for any policy guidance. 

[packsaddle]

This is a particularly touchy subject for me, the DUI thing. If National doesn't care about DUI but they DO care about check fraud, I have a big problem with National's decision. To me they have it completely backward.

As for your question about where to draw the line, I don't know. I doubt that anyone else here does either. My guess (worth the paper it's written on) is that "sever all ties" means no training, no leadership. That's all.

Edited July 25, 2015 by packsaddle