cellio | [SCA] misguided intentions and bad policy (oy)

Entry tags:

[SCA] misguided intentions and bad policy (oy)

A few days ago the SCA corporate office announced a new (forthcoming) policy: because there have been problems, officers working with children and anyone running children's activities at an event must first pass a background check (details not yet provided). They're trying to weed out convicted sex offenders; I'm not sure what else they're trying to screen for.

Predictably, this has spawned a few threads on SCA discussion lists. One is about the concern that this will drive away prospective volunteers; it's an imposition (and who exactly is paying for it anyway?). Some people already complain that we don't do enough age-appropriate stuff for kids; I agree that this will make things worse in that regard. My suggestion, since the policy is about "children's activities", is to say we have no such thing: anyone is welcome to join us for coloring and nap time. That most adults won't be interested does not make it a children's activity on the books. (And why become an officer when you could just informally work with parents? There are no perks to being an officer.)

Another thread concerns parents and how if they were responsible and attentive and involved in their kids' lives, they wouldn't need to worry that the guy telling stories or teaching games is going to molest anyone. There are valid arguments on both sides (parents can't be everywhere all the time), and most SCA parents I know are reasonable, but I do wonder whether the requirement for background checks will make the irresponsible parents even more likely to dump their kids while they go off and party. Now the SCA has offered a promise that it's safe to do so. (I am very glad that a particularly problematic family has moved out of our group.)

But the thread that really gets under my skin is the "but think of the poor children!" one. A post tonight started off with this: If these background checks protect even _one_ child in Aethelmearc from sexual molestion or rape, it is worth it. It then went on with emotional appeals about the badness of molestation and abuse. Um, no one is arguing that molestation and abuse are good.

To that person I say (and said): Try this logically-equivalent statement: "If outlawing all motor vehicles saves even _one_ innocent victim from being killed by a reckless driver, it is worth it." Of course you wouldn't agree to that; while we want to minimize deaths due to reckless drivers, we recognize that there are other relevant factors, like the needs for commerce, transport to employment, and so on.

The world is not 100% safe. Any society (small "s") has to balance all of the legitimate needs of all of its members in trying to figure out where the best balance point is. Even if background checks were a silver bullet, you aren't done until you also address the problems they would impose.

(Aside: just this past week we had a local kidnapping case (adult and infant) that happened in front of a large grocery store in a well-trafficked area. Today's paper quoted a resident as saying that Giant Eagle needs to beef up its security so this can't happen again. Are you really ready to pay higher grocery costs to provide a guard stationed in front of the store? (Israelis, I don't mean you; yours is a different problem.))

I am not personally affected by the background-check rule. I'm not a parent (nor a kid :-) ), nor do I have any intention of being an officer in the SCA, nor am I inclined to run child-specific activities. But I think we're all harmed when bad "logic" drives policy. Proponents of more-restrictive policies need to support them with sound arguments, not appeals to emotion.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What they're not grasping is that this policy is not to protect the children (though if it's a side-effect, that's not a bad thing), but to protect the SCA. If there is another incident like Ben the Steward, and the SCA is in the hot seat, they have some sort of high ground because they had mechanisms in place to at least weed out those who had records.

I considered that, but if that's what they're doing it seems like they're playing with fire. It's bad enough (legally speaking) if something happens; it's got to be much worse if they issued credentials and something still happens.

I don't know the details of the case; would Ben the Steward have been caught by a background check? (I had the impression that his record was unblemished before the SCA incidents.)

If I had to speculate, I'd say a hostile attorney might argue that you are already credentialling as soon as you label someone as "the youth stuff officer" within your group, so if you're going to do that you should establish a stronger due diligence paper trail via background checks.

But my first intuition was to agree with you that this was a dangerous mistake, that there has to be a better way of dealing with this that involves carefully disclaiming any credentialling (sort of like the careful wording that has been used on occasions when discussing the chiurgeonate).

That being said, I'm a software developer with an inflated sense that the knows what he's talking about (i.e. not that far removed from many of the historical policy makers within the SCA Corporate) and would therefore much rather hear a thorough analysis of the caselaw from someone who's job is actually to know the caselaw.

I'd say a hostile attorney might argue that you are already credentialling as soon as you label someone as "the youth stuff officer" within your group

So that's an argument for not permitting (or at least not endorsing) "youth stuff officers", which might be a good idea anyway. They haven't made that a required office for kingdoms and baronies yet, have they? (I've lost track.)

That being said, I'm a software developer with an inflated sense that the knows what he's talking about

Yeah, me too. I'd love to hear an analysis by an independent lawyer.

AFAIK, the required officers for a shire are Seneschal and Exchequer plus one of the following: Herald, MOAS or Marshall. My laptop has Corpora bookmarked for such occassions, but I'm not using it now.

Shires get off lighter with required officers; there are more requirements for bigger groups, but I can't recall exactly which. (Some come from kingdom laws rather than the corporation, so any kingdoms that have added children's officer to that list might want to reconsider.)

If anyone had done a background check on Ben, they wouldn't have found a thing to worry about. The proposed rules wouldn't have kept him out of anything.

As to the rest, the only thing I want to address is this. Naptime and colouring? Yeah, I'm there. :)

I figured there might be takers on naptime. :-)

No, he wouldn't. But had there been background checks, there would have been something to show that they exercised due diligence.

Background checks are empatically NOT credentials, however. They are not saying "This person is safe around children." They *are* saying "This person has not been found to be UNSAFE around children THUS FAR." There is a world of difference, and people are attributing to them powers that do not exist.

Background checks are empatically NOT credentials, however.

Thank you for pointing that out. I had missed that, and I'm pretty sure most of the people discussing it on my kingdom's mailing list have missed it. Which makes it even more dangerous, actually -- people ascribe an unwarranted level of security to it, and the SCA will (probably) be even more on the hook when something happens and the liability suit comes knocking.

I don't think so. Just because the plaintiff thinks that the SCA had certified a predator as safe doesn't make it true, and I think the court would agree.

FWIW, if I want to be a parent chaperone on a field trip for my son's class, I have to undergo a background check.

And the boy scouts do something similar. The difference between those cases and SCA events is that with school/scout trips, the parents aren't there so they can't intervene. At an SCA event, the parents are on-site somewhere, and unless it's a large event they're nearby. (Pennsic is a city, but most of our local events are in one building with a main room and a few side rooms.) SCA parents always have the option to attend children's activities with their kids.

There might also be a difference in the service model. As a parent, are you paying the school or scout trip to take care of your kid, to take temporary custody? The SCA offers activities, run by volunteers, which you can attend or not. (Generally the people running such activities make the point that if your kid decides to leave, they will not stop him. This is not babysitting.) So there might be a difference in liability, or reasonable expectations of same.

Sorry, I substantially disagree with you.

But the thread that really gets under my skin is the "but think of the poor children!" one. A post tonight started off with this: If these background checks protect even _one_ child in Aethelmearc from sexual molestion or rape, it is worth it.

Surely it irritates you because of how badly and inappropriately it's been used in the past to infringe upon other people's liberties; with that I completely sympathize. But I feel perhaps your emotional reaction to this old vexation has overtaken your reasoned appraisal of it. This is precisely the appropriate context for that argument. Not (merely) because of the severity of the potential crime, but because of the utter non-existence of the rights violation this will entail.

I do not for a moment grant that anyone has a right to use the SCA as a context for holding children's activities. If the SCA wishes, as it evidently does, to put constraints on just who shall be allowed to run children's activities under its aegis, it is well within it's rights to put conditions upon the allocation of that privilege.

To that person I say (and said): Try this logically-equivalent statement

It is not logically-equivalent to arguing that preventing all driving. It is logically-equivalent to arguing that we should refuse to allocate drivers licenses to people who have criminal DUI records, and that due diligence consists of at least checking the db of known DUI convicts before handing someone a drivers license. Which, as you know, is precisely how our society runs.

Furthermore, your hypothetically equivalent scenario involves depriving all for the benefit of a few. But in the actual scenario, I see no burden at all upon the all or the many or even a bunch, for the benefit of a few (which will be come more), and what burden there is is not a deprivation. No one's liberties are being violated. If you don't want to do this thing, you don't have to. You do have to do it to be allowed to do this other thing which you don't have any particular right to do.

There are problems and issues with the plan as it has come to me, but none of them come anywhere close to adding up to an argument against implementation.

To address a few other points:

Another thread concerns parents and how if they were responsible and attentive and involved in their kids' lives

That entire line of argument infuriates me because of the profound ignorance it displays about just how the crime which the SCA is attempting to prevent is actually committed. Apparently the snatch-and-grab myth is alive and well in the current middle ages.

You can't have a meaningful discussion about security without understanding your threat model.

As I have read it, one of the classic modus operandi of chronic child molesters is to seek out parents to cultivate relationships with, which they do over time by being helpful, responsible, convivial people, given to volunteering and generally being the sort of fellow adult one likes to have around. Thus they curry the parents' favor and trust, and over time, the parents think it no big deal to trust this person with their children, not just as an approved of external authority figure, but as a personal friend.

The entire discussion of how parents should be around during children's activities and get to know the people running them is utter kaka. It's not that the children's activities give potential predators access to children, it's that it gives them access to parents, giving the predator opportunity to convince parents that they're trustworthy and "good with kids" so that they can then escalate to less public/supervised encounters with kids.

The threat model of child molestation is one where it makes sense to check anyone who wants to run children's activities, to protect parents from being con'd by the act, because parents, all parents, are in a very bad position to protect themselves.

Sorry, I substantially disagree with you.

It'd be pretty boring if everyone agreed with me all the time. :-)

Not (merely) because of the severity of the potential crime, but because of the utter non-existence of the rights violation this will entail.

I fear the rest of the iceberg. The next logical step is to require autocrats (of event that let children in) be cleared. A few steps down the line, it wouldn't shock me if people call for mere attendees at large events like Pennsic to be cleared. While on the one hand no one has a right to attend SCA events, there is a strong tradition of such events being open to all comers (who pay the gate fee and haven't been explicitly banished), and I think the society part of the SCA would be damaged if events could no longer function in that way.

(Redacted: tangent about who rightfully owns events, local groups or the corporation.)

No one has an inherent right to hold children's activities or conduct a tournament or cook a feast or run an event, but we do these things and we should look carefully when the corporation (that provides neither labor nor money for these events) imposes new rules. We already accept that new rules can be made (e.g. safety requirements for fighting), so that's not an argument in principle. I think this particular policy falls on the wrong side of the line between what protects the society and what protects certain individuals at the expense of an open society.

Suppose, instead, the corporation made a rule that all cooks have to have received certifiation from local boards of health, like cooks in restaurants do. That sounds reasonable, right? Food-safety is important. There are more feasters than children in the SCA, though granted the outcome of an incident is probably more likely to be acute and short-term. But if we're going to regulate kids' activities, regulating feasts doesn't seem out of line. Ok, no one has a right to cook feasts -- but what would our events be like if, say, half the cooks said "nah, too much bother" and wouldn't do it? We'd have fewer feasts, or the same number of feasts with more risk of burning out fewer people. Can we survive without feasts? Sure. Would we have as much fun? I'd say no.

An alternative approach is for people who are concerned about food safety to not eat feasts from cooks who haven't been vetted to whatever standards those people have. A similar approach could apply to children's activities: parents have the final say over whether their kids participate, and they should evaluate the situation and make their own decisions. I take your point about molesters setting out to dupe parents, so it is appropriate for the SCA to warn parents of this risk and provide information about the kinds of credentials they should look for. That's different from imposing a requirement.

The easiest way for a local group to deal with the new children's rule, unless they've got someone who's ready to go get the clearance, is to stop having children's activities. Now I'm fine with that, but I've heard a lot of parents say that this would lead to them not coming to as many events. So far, shrug -- except what if those parents are some of the people who help run things, or who are your friends and part of the reason you go to events?

There isn't a civil-liberties issue here, but I think if this isn't handled carefully (and it hasn't been so far), there is potential for real damage to the society. (Society = the people and activities, as distinct from the corporation.) If we're going to risk this kind of damage, there'd better be a sound argument for the policy, IMO.

Suppose, instead, the corporation made a rule that all cooks have to have received certifiation from local boards of health, like cooks in restaurants do. That sounds reasonable, right? Food-safety is important. There are more feasters than children in the SCA, though granted the outcome of an incident is probably more likely to be acute and short-term. But if we're going to regulate kids' activities, regulating feasts doesn't seem out of line. Ok, no one has a right to cook feasts -- but what would our events be like if, say, half the cooks said "nah, too much bother" and wouldn't do it? We'd have fewer feasts, or the same number of feasts with more risk of burning out fewer people. Can we survive without feasts? Sure. Would we have as much fun? I'd say no.

How would you feel about it if there had been 24 cases of food poisoning at SCA feasts in the past two years? And not isolated to any particular area...

Me, I'd start avoiding feasts until it could be proven that I won't get sick at one. Unless I knew the cook was well schooled in food prep safety.

Hear hear. If you would like to hear more about poor food prep standards and poisonous feasts, stop by Strawberry Fields at Pennsic and I'll introduce you to my Mistress. She has stories about feasts over her 20+ years of participation that will curl your hair and put you off your feed for days.

I would feel the same way. I would (and already do), as a feast consumer, do some checking around before making a reservation. It's my responsibility to satisfy myself that the cook will, in my case, most likely be able to deliver a vegetarian meal. How do I do this? Personal reputation, the cook's readiness to provide an ingredient list, maybe talking with people who know the cook if I don't, etc. If the SCA hosted an optional registration service for background checks or credentials, so that I could easily look up whether this cook has passed Food Safety 101 from the board of health, I'd avail myself of that.

It is, of course, within the rights of the officers of any local group to say "we can't afford the risk, financially or in reputation, to have you cook one of our feasts until you get this credential". It is also within their rights to say "we know you, have seen you work, and trust you". If cooks make full disclosure, I think it should be up to the hosting groups and, ultimately, the consumers to decide who's acceptable. Not the corporation.

This isn't a perfect analogy, as in this case there were credentials involved, but: did you stop eating at restaurants when Chi-Chi's had the hepatitis problem? Or did you only stop eating at Chi-Chi's, even though their supplier of green onions also supplied other restaurants?

If there were 24 cases of food poisoning in two years, I'd ask a lot more questions before buying feasts. But I wouldn't assume that one of the 1000+ events being held this year would poison me. Statistically, getting into an accident on the way to the event is probably more likely.

I didn't eat at chi-chi's much before that. I did eat out, but remember that every restaurant pretty much stopped using green onion for a while after that incident. I certainly would not have eaten any green onion at the time.

I stopped feeding my cats food that contained wheat gluten, due to the tainted wheat gluten from China.

But here the thing... these incidents occured by accident/without malicious intent.

No one accidentally molests a child.

The original letter is unclear. Have there been 24 incidents at SCA events, or were 24 people banished for mundane convictions for crimes outside the SCA?

What

amergina said. The SCA doesn't have an established problem with food-safety, but it does have an established problem with child-safety. If the SCA had an equivalent problem with food-safety, actually, yeah, then requiring credentials of cooks would make sense.

But again, your analogy is substantively different. Requiring a food service credential is requiring that someone have certification that they can do something safely; that's, frankly, more similar to fighter authorization than anything else! It's a documentation of their training and ability. But a background check is not a certification; it doesn't address someone's training or ability, it doesn't presume to say whether or not someone is good at something or can do it reliably or well.

It merely reports whether or not someone is a known criminal. It's a negative check, not a positive one. Requiring a food service cert is a white-list check. Requiring a background check is a black-list check.

The next logical step is to require autocrats (of event that let children in) be cleared. A few steps down the line, it wouldn't shock me if people call for mere attendees at large events like Pennsic to be cleared.

Ah, yes, all those churches and synagogues which now require all their congregants to have background checks to worship there... *coff*

There's nothing particularly logical about extending it to autocrats (but exchequers, for a completely different reason (and different sort of background check) would probably do the SCA a great bit of good, what with its (chronic?) embezzlement problem) since autocrats don't particularly fit the threat model. But you know, if there starts being a problem with predators starting to autocrat events because it's useful in preying on kids (or commiting any other felonies), I haven't got a problem with that.

The easiest way for a local group to deal with the new children's rule, unless they've got someone who's ready to go get the clearance, is to stop having children's activities.

No, actually, the easiest way will be to comply. You slap your money down, get the check done, and go on with things. Pretty much anything else will be harder, for all the obvious reasons.

My shire had enough trouble at an OFFICERS meeting getting 5 people to pay membership dues. So I'll let you be the one to say "Who wants to be Minister of Youth? It will require a $20 donation in order to ensure that you aren't a child molester." Many would-be volunteers would say to themselves, yeah, maybe I'll just be herald and save the cash. So if the Corporation would like to protect itself (reasonable), and check backgrounds of potential ministers of youth (already a difficult to recruit for position if the Kingdom newsletter is to be believed), let them pay for it at their own expense. Unless you want to try pass-the-hat to parents, and good luck with that. Small groups will either not have an officer for children's activities, not have children's activities as such(

cellio's suggestion of coloring for all ages), or not have children's activities at all.

*shrug* I haven't got a problem with the Corp paying for it, especially now that it has a income stream with the NMS. I'll just observe that cost shuffling doesn't actually work to make any changes, since they'll just pass the cost back along to people who buy memberships or they'll raise the NMS.

Whitelists versus blacklists: thank you; that's an important point that I (and I suspect most participants in the conversation on the kingdom list) had missed.

Ah, yes, all those churches and synagogues which now require all their congregants to have background checks to worship there... *coff*

I hope you can see the difference between attending a worship service in a room with hundreds of others for a couple hours, and going to a sisable, spread-out city not known for good security for two weeks.

No, actually, the easiest way will be to comply. You slap your money down, get the check done, and go on with things. Pretty much anything else will be harder, for all the obvious reasons.

That's easy for the person filling the office. But now autocrats have to verify the status of not just the officers but every person who's helping to run kids' activities at the event. As an autocrat, do you even know who all your helpers are in advance? Or do you let the cook recruit kitchen help and the head toolner recruit help and the marshal in charge recruit marshals, and so on? Do I get to just push the problem down, making verification the problem of the officer in charge? That's fine with me, but I've now made work for that officer.

Is it a lot of work? Probably not, but it does add hassle, especially when you factor in non-local helpers. I can easily see it being easier to just say "nope, no official kids' activities here".

Judging from what I see in the newsletter and on the mailing list, by the way, it was already kind of hard to get people to fill this office before this happened.

I hope you can see the difference between attending a worship service in a room with hundreds of others for a couple hours, and going to a sisable, spread-out city not known for good security for two weeks.

Yes -- it's far more plausible to insist on background checks for the worship service than for the city, and even that the organizations most motivated to do so haven't done!

But now autocrats have to verify the status of not just the officers but every person who's helping to run kids' activities at the event.

Good point. That said, my impression -- which let us be clear, is based on the hearsay of incredibly nebulous "details" proposed so far, so take it with one of those nifty Iranian salt glaciers -- is that the requisite paperwork for this is far less than for any martial art in the society. I'm not happy to see paperwork proliferate, but as paperwork goes, it sounds like this is very modest. Making sure each of your volunteers is up to date on their background check (and has anybody thought about how background checks go stale?) is of a smaller scale than making sure all your fighters are authorized.

Do I get to just push the problem down, making verification the problem of the officer in charge?

Groups can handle it however they think best, presumably, but just as presumably they will handle it the same way we handle every other participation check: there is a minister for the group who is responsible for that. We don't generally require autocrats to insure every thrown weapons competitor has signed their waiver, that's what the Thrown Weapons cheif marshal is for, e.g.

Judging from what I see in the newsletter and on the mailing list, by the way, it was already kind of hard to get people to fill this office before this happened.

Yeah, which is actually, to my mind, an additional reason to be not too worried about it: it seems we have already established a heck of a lot of groups aren't sufficiently behind the concept to support it in the first place, the argument "But then they'll be even less willing to do it!" makes me say, "Less than not at all? What, they're going to go to other groups' events and prevent them from holding children's activities??"

This brings me to another point. Across the various journals I read, far and away the most vocal objections to this policy I've seen -- heck, maybe all the objections -- have come from non-parents who don't volunteer for children's activities. To the extent that I've heard from parents (I haven't heard from any non-parents particularly involved in volunteering yet) they've been completely sanguine with this proposal.

It bothers me that it seems we have, on one hand, uninvolved people who will not be directly effected saying "No! Think of the volunteers!" and the volunteers in question saying, "Yes, sure, sounds good to me." While I do appreciate the point that branches of the Society shouldn't go off and do their own thing with no thought to how their collective conduct impacts the whole, I do feel strongly that the people who are most effected by something, who are most invested in it, should have the most say in it.

(This is actually something I have come to feel is a substantial flaw in democracies, and is a more general flaw in the "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for dinner" vein. I've decided to do my best to live accordingly. For instance, at work, I recused myself from the decision about what insurance plan we should get, because I know for many of my co-workers this is literally a life-or-death issue, and one which involves much vaster sums of money for them than for me. And I explicitly said, in my note to HR, what I was doing and why, and said that while I trusted they'd keep the discussants from breaking the bank, I wanted them to prioritize the voices of those for whom this had more effect on their lives.)

If the parents or children's activity volunteers I am hearing from were opposed to this, I would back them 100%. But they are generally for it and that carries a whole lot of weight to me.

It bothers me that it seems we have, on one hand, uninvolved people who will not be directly effected saying "No! Think of the volunteers!" and the volunteers in question saying, "Yes, sure, sounds good to me." While I do appreciate the point that branches of the Society shouldn't go off and do their own thing with no thought to how their collective conduct impacts the whole, I do feel strongly that the people who are most effected by something, who are most invested in it, should have the most say in it.

Thanks for pointing this out! I hadn't noticed it, but now that you say it... it does sort of put an interesting slant on things. Mind if I copy/quote to my journal (with attribution of course)?

And "What, they're going to other groups' events and prevent them from holding children's activities?" made me laugh. :-)

Be my guest!

Yes -- it's far more plausible to insist on background checks for the worship service than for the city,

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here. Contained space, limited time, and a roomful of witnesses, versus Pennsic encampments?

(and has anybody thought about how background checks go stale?)

Good point. The check is good for two years. A lot can happen in two years without anyone in the SCA being the wiser.

Groups can handle it however they think best, presumably, but just as presumably they will handle it the same way we handle every other participation check: there is a minister for the group who is responsible for that.

My group is required to have a marshal and a list minister; we're not required to have a children's officer. If we do, great -- it can be that person's problem. If we don't, whose problem is it? I suppose what will happen is that, as with archery, thrown weapons, etc, the affected communities will be responsible for policing their own, with the stick of "no activity for you at this event if you can't make sure it's legal".

Across the various journals I read, far and away the most vocal objections to this policy I've seen -- heck, maybe all the objections -- have come from non-parents who don't volunteer for children's activities.

I've seen objections from parents on my kingdom mailing list. I don't know if those parents help run children's activities. I haven't been keeping a tally of this, but will pay attention from now on.

I like at least in principal this model of Underwriters Laboratories (or for that matter kashrut). Many appliances are labeled as approved by UL. No one prohibits the purchase of non-UL approved devices, but some people won't buy them. So to, a Youth Minister (the SCA kind, not the religious kind) who has been background checked may be more trustworthy to some parents than others. However others might not wish to take the effort to check.

On a tangential point, would this be another authorization (Authorized in Rapier, Sword & Shield, Children)?

Exactly. Make whatever information you have available to the consumers (parents in this case), and let them decide what's good enough.

(Your authorization analogy made me laugh. Rattan and rapier have subdivisions (like two-weapon, weapon-and-shield, etc); what would the subdivisions in "child" be? Two-child? Two-handed-child (for the really tough-to-handle ones)? :-) )

We don't make every fighter who enters the list ascertain the authorization status of his opponent for himself. Why would it be a good thing to do otherwise with children's activities?

We make every buyer decide for himself whether a given merchant is trustworthy. We make every feaster determine whether the cook is safe. It seems we do some of each -- officers to verify in some cases, caveat emptor in others.

What I want to know is how this will be implemented in overseas groups I can see several options...

1) We all the info on person X to the company in the USA, the pretend to do something with it.
2) We are forbidden from having stuff for kids.
3) We are expected to do local background checks and pay for them.
4) We ignore the whole thing.

Personally I'm going with #4.

I sometimes wonder just what it is that overseas groups get out of being part of SCA Inc. It doesn't seem to be insurance protection, liability protection, preferential tax treatment, or publicity.

Caveat: I don't know the scenario, and I don't have a good opinion of the SCA to begin with, so I can't say that I have an informed opinion on the matter. I'm not the sort to let that stop me, though. ;-) Two thoughts:

1) It seems that "No children allowed at SCA events" would solve the legal dilemma and involve a whole lot less paperwork. Making the argument might also expose the parents who expect the rest of the world to jump through hoops just so that they can avoid hiring a baby-sitter. Maybe the argument should be "Why is inconveniencing the rest of the organization BETTER than prohibiting children outright?"

2) In Pennsylvania, at least, there's already a common protocol for these things. It's referred to colloquially as "Act 34", and involves a criminal background check and an explicit clearance to work with children. The paperwork can be acquired here (http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/General/FormsPub/003671038.htm). Every school and public agency and many volunteer organizations that work with children requires clearance through these forms.

It seems that "No children allowed at SCA events" would solve the legal dilemma and involve a whole lot less paperwork.

It sure would. The firestorm would be interesting and, perhaps, imformative (as you say).

We've been told that existing checks (e.g. "Act 34") won't be relevant, but we haven't been told yet what the new check will involve.

Will the SCA accept credentialing from other orgs. e.g., Rivka needed credentialing when she joined the local Jewish Cub Scout board. All of us that do the camping with our cub scouts get training as adults that includes credentialing that we don't have an urge to mess with kids.

There are a significant number of folks in professions (like teaching) or with other hobbies (like scouting) that already credential.

Otherwise, what is the SCA going to do, run people's names through the sex offender databases?

Our kingdom seneschal posted that existing checks/clearances will not be accepted; all must be done by the same vendor (yet to be identified). I do not know with what authority she spoke; I have the impression she got that from the BoD and she's generally pretty careful about not speaking out her butt, but I don't remember exactly what she said in this case.

Do you have an (unofficial, of course) opinion on whether this requirement increases the SCA's liability exposure? (They are moving from unregulated to somewhat-regulated.)

No opinion. This stuff is complicated and I haven't looked at it in years. Whenever kids are involved, judges get all wacko.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[SCA] misguided intentions and bad policy (oy)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

a question

Re: a question

24 incidents?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Practical question

Re: Practical question

Re: Practical question