Question about banned leaders/comitee members

[Smithgall]

This question came up and i am really curious about the answer. We have a parent that was denied being a comitee member due to her background check. Because many records are public it was discovered that there had been some domestic violance issues between she and her husband.

 

My question is since this information is not disclosed (by council) is it ever appropriate to let parents know? Im really torn because it doesnt make sense to pulicize this womans dirty laundry but at the same time if we dont know there is an issue then we run the risk of sending boys over to a parents house that may be dangerous. because not all things are scout events such as birthday parties and graduations etc. we often interact outside of scout rules.

 

We dont really have and issue it just brought up the hypotheical questions of when is it appropriate. What if the parent had a recent DUI, drug charge, sex offender. As an ASM i never knew she was even denied let alone what the problem was, so if the need arose to have several boys over at her house (she is an involved parent) I feel sort of responsible for putting them in a situation where there could be a issue. Again what if it were a DUI and she offers to drive some boys, Again i would feel responsible if something ever happened. the wiorse would of course be what if there were a sex charge, if i dont know then what if that adult want to attend a campout?

 

This is one of those examples where knowing a little is worse than not know at all. Its not like i have checked out every neighborhood mom and dad. I dont even know the legal background of all our relatives so since i dont know i guess I am blissfully ignorant. But since BSA requires a background check i then kind of feel like i have a right to know.

[dg98adams]

I would say to "air" any info about her would be legally dangerous.

 

But if she was DENIED a BSA position because of the background check:

 

In my opinion....

 

Should not have supervision of Scouts (other than her own).

Should not drive Scouts (other than her own) anywhere.

Should not be "used" in any "Scouting function" or capacity where 2-deep, registered leaders are not present.

 

Volunteer parent support fine....not given role of registered Scouter.

 

If it's outside of Scouting....then it's just that "Outside of Scouting".

 

Our Troop requires drivers (of more than own Scout) to be registered.(This message has been edited by dg98adams)

[Hal_Crawford]

Smithgall:

Let me get this straight. The person was denied membership because of a background check. Council has not informed your unit or CO of the details, just that membership was denied. You or someone else has done some independent research and found public records that could be the cause of denial of membership. Good so far?

 

Now, how do you know that you have found the same dirt that BSA's contractor found? Could it be that there was something far worse that you missed? You raise a lot of "what if" questions in your post but what if you don't have the facts?

 

You raise some good questions about what extent the person should be allowed to be involved but you really don't have the information to answer those questions.

 

I would suggest that your CO should ask the council for direction as to what the individual can and cannot do given the denial of membership. They should be able to give you some official direction.

 

As to the non-scout interactions I would be very cautious about what you say to others as you could be on legal thin ice.

 

Hal

 

 

[Scoutmaster Ron]

If you are asked about her membership your response "so and so was denied memberrship" that's all If you went snooping after learning that, that part was inapropriate

[Eamonn]

My thinking is.

We all wear a lot of hats.

If as a parent I was uncomfortable with my child visiting someones home?

I'd tell him that he couldn't go there.

As a Scouter.

If the COR said that the CO didn't want any Scouts visiting someones home. I'd do what I was told and follow the instructions given.

If as a Scouter I came across the information by some sort of accident. I'd remember that my role/job is to deliver the program. No more, no less.

If for some reason I thought or felt the need to tell someone? I'd tell the COR or the Head of the Chartering Organization and I'd follow his instructions.

 

We have to be very careful when and where we stick our noses!

There is no way we can save the world or fix every wrong.

The youth we serve belong to a unit that is "Owned" by the CO.

While I have only known one person in 25 years who was barred from Scouting. I know of at least five people who the background check came back wrong about!

One was a local police chief!

Eamonn.

[Smithgall]

Hal - you are right that I may not have all the facts. i didnt find the information to begin with so you are right there may be more i dont know. I guess to be more accurate i coudl say she was denied AND she has domestic violence issue. I cant say that the denial was directly related because council does not tell you these things. But my question comes from this lack of information. If someone is denied a leadership/comittee role due to a background check is there a responsibility on the part of council to caution parents. After all its not like they are denied for bad credit.

[scoutldr]

I doubt that the Council has any "duty to warn". The purpose of their background checks is to determine if they meet the membership requirements of the BSA. In this case, she did not. That's all you know for certain and all you should tell others.

[Basementdweller]

A question for the group about background checks.

 

 

What if a committee member held a job that would allow him to run prospective Adult volunteers thru law enforcement type database.

 

Is it proper and appropriate for him to do it?

[Smithgall]

I wonder the same thing. i knwo some other people have said its too much but really most law enforcement info is oublic knowledge anyway. If you have been arested it will show up if you know where to look. the cops have all that data in a nice easy to use database and they also have the info you dont know. Like if the cops were called to your house but you were not arrested. Its a fine line for two resons. one the cop really isnt supposed to to tell you this info so you run a problem for the cop. however at the same time the facts are the facts. In my case some people have said you "snoop" into someones background. I dont know that i agree with that. First of all if its public info its not really snopping. If the facts are the facts then the person cant do a whole lot. Your opinion is one thing but stating the fact is another. You are a drunk and i dont want my kid riding with you is your opinion. You have a dui from a year ago and i dont want my kid riding with you is a fact.

 

Im a little sensitive to this because i am aware of a father that used to go on campouts with the boys and only after the kid aged out did it come out the the father was molesting the boy. Nnow its true that since the father had never been arested no background check would have shown that. But as i said earlier, Since i have the ability to check i want to check.

 

I guess it comes down to what is more important, the risk to the kids or the privacy of the parents.. its not an easy question. One solution as far as campouts is to have any parents that want to go must have background check. that is a reasonable solution.

[Curious]

"Nnow its true that since the father had never been arested no background check would have shown that."

 

"One solution as far as campouts is to have any parents that want to go must have background check. that is a reasonable solution."

 

A reasonable solution? Since the first background check would have failed, more will be effective? What is reasonable about that?

 

Personally, I would suggest you rely on following YP protocol instead.

 

 

 

"law enforcement info is oublic knowledge anyway ... Like if the cops were called to your house but you were not arrested."

 

I would be very wary of convicting people on hearsay evidence. Just because the police are summoned does not mean a crime has been committed.

 

In fact, one officer was fired after she got tired of answering one man's nuisance complaints:

http://www.drudge.com/news/124648/texas-cop-fired-egging-house

[Hal_Crawford]

The "reasonable solution" is to religiously practice two deep leadership. The molester who has never been caught (no record) will not have a chance to do anything wrong on a scout outing. Like always assuming a gun is loaded it is best to always assume that an adult should not be left alone with a scout. No exceptions, no problems.

 

Hal

[Lisabob]

No it is not acceptable to have law-enforcement types run prospective committee members through a background check without the approval of those committee members, and without the authority to do so via the law. This constitutes an abuse of power/position by the law enforcement officer in question. Does it happen? Yes. Should it? No.

 

And supposing you turn up something, then what? Are you going to actually tell the person this happened (which may, among other things, cause the law enforcement officer to be reprimanded or even lose their job)? I doubt it.

[shortridge]

Anyone can do a public records search, or hire a company to do so, and see what comes up. You could do one on your boss, neighbor, spouse or Scoutmaster. There's nothing preventing you from doing that. What you do with that information is up to you. If you're really concerned, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction - that'll be much more accurate than anything you get here.

 

Law enforcement officers, by virtue of their profession, have access to much more detailed and personal information than would be contained in standard public records. Generally, they're prohibited from searching that information except in the performance of their duties - you can't just start profiling people on a whim.

[Smithgall]

It is reasonable to have background checks done on campout parents. As i state it would not have uncovered the parent with no arrests in his background but it will either disuade someone with a background issue or bring an issue to light. Think of it this way. If you dont do a background check on a campout parent you are then in the weird position of making the comitee secretary a more thoroughly investigated position that that of a person going along with the boys. Does that make sense? Again until this issue with the molested boy came up I never really thought about it and then when we had the woman denied recently it brought it up again. Seems i am the minority on this issue. Perhaps i am making too much out of it

 

i agree the YP methods are a fantastic way to avoid nearly all issues that could come up. Obviously nothing is fool proof but if you do follow them religiously, as someone said, then you avoid many issues.

 

I also agree having a cop look up a visit to someones house is an abuse of power and its correct that it certainly in no way indicates a wrong doing on the part of the people at the home. Ive had police called to my house once because my neighbor didnt like my dog barking. this was probably 15 years ago. No note from the neighbor, no phone call, nothing. Just a knock on the door from the police. So i fully appreciate the difference between a visit and an arrest. Even an arrest is not a proof of wrong doing because it is not a guilty verdict.

[Lisabob]

Smith, if you want to ensure that the adults who accompany the boys on camp outs are all checked out, then have a policy requiring all adults who attend events with the boys to be registered leaders. That will require them to go through the BSA's background check.

 

I have heard that some CO's also require certain types of background checks, separate from the BSA. But they don't do it surreptitiously, as far as I know. They make the requirement known to their prospective members right up front, and people can opt not to participate (which also means they won't be leaders for that scouting unit).