Background Checks?

[JulieM]

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

He stated that he would be willing to help pay for something in the future that he has, to date, never actually paid for himself. 

I don't doubt his sincerity. 

Sure sounds that way and it’s pretty crummy for you to post stuff that you’re stating, IMO.

And you’re wrong, he has stated he’s paid for background checks (but maybe you missed that?)

Edited April 11, 2019 by JulieM

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

He stated that he would be willing to help pay for something in the future that he has, to date, never actually paid for himself. 

How would you know that?  You are sure full of false accusations here.  You don't know me and you don't what I have or have not done....but you keep doubting and questioning and accusing.  Cut it out.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Those seeking clearance are currently waiting many months for that clearance to be granted. In the meantime, they are allowed to work/serve as if the clearance had already been granted. (I just renewed mine, and the receipt alone makes me lawful.) In large part, this is because governments have no clue how many people actually volunteer with children. No clue.

Very interesting...and frustrating.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Nobody wants to throw away money just to find out that the retired Kindergarten teacher and registered nurse who are serving as your kid's CTR 7 teachers really aren't pedophiles.

This is the nut of the issue. According to the 2017 review of the New South Wales scheme, 99.82 per cent of all applicants were cleared. This then raises the question: is this the best way to screen out the tiny fraction of actual or potential offenders? Literally no one seems to know the answer to that question, though the reviews in Australia all raise it.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is the nut of the issue. According to the 2017 review of the New South Wales scheme, 99.82 per cent of all applicants were cleared. 

That honestly doesn’t surprise me.  I would believe most past abusers wouldn’t even apply or try to pass a background check.  So that’s a deterrent right there.

If members knew their past abuse record would show up, they’d probably say no to any calling that required a background check to avoid having to have one done.

Edited April 11, 2019 by JulieM

[Amulek]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes.  This is an issue of utmost importance for me.....for my own reasons.

I can respect that. And I'll try to keep my comments more on the friendly side going forward. 

 

Quote

Good grief.  This is a discussion and we're talking about options.  I have no idea if that would get approved (me paying for doing background checks on members of my ward).  I'd imagine approval from higher up would have to take place first (possibly for legal reasons).   I serve in the bishopric and I'll approach the Bishop about it in our next meeting together.  I tend to believe he will react positively (to background checks),  but will also say we would need approval to just start doing them in our ward.

But like I said, I would be more than happy to donate toward this if the leaders asked and felt it was important to implement.  I honestly believe many would donate to a fund for this.

Why are you so hung up on the cost?

Why are you so hung up on there needing to be an institutional solution for this? You would only need approval if you were trying to get the church to pay for the investigations or soliciting money from the congregation or trying to have the ward be responsible for running them. 

But this is something you can totally do on your own. There is nothing illegal or immoral about running a background check on someone else.

So, start up a website, slap a paypal donation button on it, and then start posting the results of every background check that you run. 

I'm not a web design ninja, but I can point you in the right direction if you need help getting started. 

 

[Amulek]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

32 minutes ago, Amulek said:

He stated that he would be willing to help pay for something in the future that he has, to date, never actually paid for himself. 

How would you know that?  You are sure full of false accusations here.  You don't know me and you don't what I have or have not done....but you keep doubting and questioning and accusing.  Cut it out.

Give me a break. I asked you, previously, if you had ever paid for background checks to be performed on your own children's church teachers.

Your exact response to that question was, and I quote, "Yeah....that would work. Great solution 🙄"

To me, that sounds like you dodging the question. Are you saying now that you have run background checks on your children's Sunday school teachers? 

Honestly, how am I supposed to know something if you aren't going to answer when you are asked - directly?

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Amulek

[Calm]

As far as church efforts, my husband just shared with me because he volunteers at the Bishop Storehouse for two hours a week, stocking shelves, that about once a month he gets an email from the Church sending him at least a link to a program for sexual harassment.  So it looks like while it may not be required (at least for those no one has made complaints about), the opportunity is being pushed by the Church in some areas.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Calm

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

As far as church efforts, my husband just shared with me because he volunteers at the Bishop Storehouse for two hours a week, stocking shelves, that about once a month he gets an email from the Church sending him at least once a month a link to a program for sexual harassment.  So it looks like while it may not be required (at least for those no one has made complaints about), the opportunity is being pushed by the Church in some areas.

That’s great!

Scouts were big on requiring attending meetings on training for abuse prevention  too, iirc 

(Can’t remember what it was called though!  Just remember my husband had to attend meetings in order to be a leader.)

Edited April 11, 2019 by JulieM

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Give me a break. I asked you, previously, if you had ever paid for background checks to be performed on your own children's church teachers.

Your exact response to that question was, and I quote, "Yeah....that would work. Great solution 🙄"

Probably because that could potentially be disastrous if members just randomly started doing background checks on each other (especially coming from a ward leader if it looked like they were encouraging members to do that).

(That’s not the question you asked anyway.)

People sue over anything now and especially if they feel others are accusing them or slandering them or digging into their privacy.  Or if they felt discriminated against.

They’d for sure sue a bishop or counselor and not stop there but would sue the church too.  

I can’t see this happening successfully without it coming from leaders in SL.

Edited April 11, 2019 by JulieM

[ALarson]

35 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Give me a break. I asked you, previously, if you had ever paid for background checks to be performed on your own children's church teachers.

Your exact response to that question was, and I quote, "Yeah....that would work. Great solution 🙄"

Now you're not being honest.  I answered "Yes" when you asked me that question:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71749-background-checks/?do=findComment&comment=1209899295

I'm done responding to you on this topic.  I know we disagree and I can respect your right to have your own opinion, of course.  But I'm not interested in continuing any discussion with you about it.  Sorry, but you can't seem to discuss this with someone who has a differing view, without making it personal.  I'm not interested in that type of discussion, but I wish you well.

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Give me a break. I asked you, previously, if you had ever paid for background checks to be performed on your own children's church teachers.

Your exact response to that question was, and I quote, "Yeah....that would work. Great solution 🙄"

To me, that sounds like you dodging the question. Are you saying now that you have run background checks on your children's Sunday school teachers? 

Honestly, how am I supposed to know something if you aren't going to answer when you are asked - directly?

 

You must have missed his post when he explained he did.

I find ALarson's acceptance of personal responsibility admirable and I get his desire to have a more comprehensive treatment available to all. If I believed it worked without detracting from better efforts, I would be gung ho.  

Even if the minimal is free to many, if it is only left with parents, there will always be those who won't be able to afford or know how to do it or even be aware it is available (think young parents with their first kid...there is so much to process at each stage)...and the reality is as Hamba pointed out, we really would need to have checks on everyone in a ward as we operate on asking people to step in last minute in so many activities.  Each parent doing research themselves would be a huge waste of time and money.

I do like my idea (of course ) of forming groups of concerned parents and others who share the work, so that those who see the evidence as it being useful can participate in it.  My two concerns with having it a mandatory Church wide requirement is I believe it might make parents feel more secure than they should and the money could be better spent elsewhere...it may not be at the moment, I don't have that info, but I would prefer money being put towards training include multiple trained adults available for each vulnerable child/youth and improving communication aboutvhow things should operate and resources available.  

Former ward librarian here, I would be all behind removing ward libraries except as basic supplies and toss pictures, videos/DVDs, church magazines, electric pianos in units with actual ones...anything that can be accessed online or has alternatives.  Not huge costs, but adds up.  I saw a lot of supplies that were bought in hopes people would use them, but few if ever did.  Example of relatively simple stuff that opens up new avenues by freeing currently available money.  I think we need to be as prudent as we can be in every area though not sacrificing comfort completely because comfort will increase participation.

I think we should always be asking "is there a better way to do this?" because needs and resources are changing all the time (pictures in ward libraries were very important when they weren't included in manuals).  And I applaud those who do, but I also think we need to research best ways and not assume because something is better, it is the right thing to do.  We need to consider what is best out there.

So I would like to see mandatory use of free background check services no matter what country one lives in (if they have it and it is legal and doesn't open up parents and leaders to lawsuits) and if it is happening, educating people that it is being done, but then I think the Church needs to employ  experts to gather info on best practices for taking it to another level before investing in paid background checks.  I just don't trust their value given the lack of positive data.

I think what might help most without costing too much is for more info on what is done to be shared.  My husband has been going to the Storehouse for years, getting these emails for much of that and this is the first time I knew about it.  There may be many other such efforts out there.  For some reason, leadership doesn't share this stuff of how things work much, but asks members to trust them or assumes they learn if necessary or something (I don't know what they think because I haven't seen this shared...anyone has?).  

I don't think that silence is always appropriate...in somethings I do, but we can't as members contribute to efforts we don't know about.  My husband dislikes the sexual harassment program idea and won't go because it is a mess at his work (they require him to take the training every year, but then when he starts the program they interrupt it with another demand, so he is required to stop...but they don't give him credit for the part completed so when he tries again, he has to start from scratch...he ends up spending more time than 'required' but rarely finishing it).  If I had been aware of this from the beginning, I could have been supportive and suggested we go together because I have never been to such.  I can sustain leaders a lot better if I know what they are doing and what they expect of myself and others.

I learned of improvements in annotations of records as well as the low effectiveness of background checks in past cases through a friend sharing his friend's conversation.  That is how so much info is learned by members in this Church.  I see it as a big waste and prone to misinterpretations, rumors, and a host of other issues. I think a lot of members don't even bother to go looking because they don't expect to find it based on past experiences ( I wonder how many believe the Church puts up hotline numbers, for example; no reason to go look for them if you don't think they are there).

 It also seems like this approach is slowly changing.  Love the Church emails with announcements of updates and such as well as inspiration messages.  I hope eventually leaders will have the habit of explaining why they have made choices.  I think it would be great to have them model prudent decision making, studying things out, using the best resources available and pulling it all together in faithful seekings of spiritual guidance.  The black box approach is, imo, so confusing and limits our ability to be a supportive community, to be unified.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Probably because that could potentially be disastrous if members just randomly started doing background checks on each other (especially coming from a ward leader if it looked like they were encouraging members to do that).

I think it would be a waste of money if done independently of each other.

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Probably because that could potentially be disastrous if members just randomly started doing background checks on each other (especially coming from a ward leader if it looked like they were encouraging members to do that).

(That’s not the question you asked anyway.)

People sue over anything now and especially if they feel others are accusing them or slandering them or digging into their privacy.  Or if they felt discriminated against.

They’d for sure sue a bishop or counselor and not stop there but would sue the church too.  

I can’t see this happening successfully without it coming from leaders in SL.

Yes, you explained well why I responded like I did.  I still believe it would need to be a more organized effort rather than just one or two leaders (or members) paying for background checks and having the power to choose who they run them on and who they don't within our ward.   And, I honestly don't think "that would work".

Gotta get off of here for the evening now   

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Probably because that could potentially be disastrous if members just randomly started doing background checks on each other (especially coming from a ward leader if it looked like they were encouraging members to do that).

(That’s not the question you asked anyway.)

People sue over anything now and especially if they feel others are accusing them or slandering them or digging into their privacy.  Or if they felt discriminated against.

They’d for sure sue a bishop or counselor and not stop there but would sue the church too.  

I can’t see this happening successfully without it coming from leaders in SL.

What would stop lawsuits is a decision is from a central organization?  Not seeing the difference...except maybe less lawyers willing to take on big corporations, but others would because deeper pockets.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

He stated that he would be willing to help pay for something in the future that he has, to date, never actually paid for himself. 

I don't doubt his sincerity. 

However, my point remains: If background checks are so effective at preventing abuse that they are a necessity, then why aren't people running them independently already? 

And I think everyone knows the answer to that question: Nobody wants to throw away money just to find out that the retired Kindergarten teacher and registered nurse who are serving as your kid's CTR 7 teachers really aren't pedophiles.

 

It's the church's responsibility, do members have to pay for everything?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

So, start up a website, slap a paypal donation button on it, and then start posting the results of every background check that you run. 

I am trying to imagine people's reaction if they know you have run background checks on them.  I would hope most understand and like that you care enough about everyone in the ward you want to share them.  But there are a lot of sensitive people out there and .I can see many assuming you think they are capable or even probable they are an abuser even if they see you doing it to everyone.

And I can see that as leading to anger and your kids getting blowback.  There are some who appear to be even offended the Church is going to two deep and protesting this means it is being taught that every man is a predators, etc.

I think if it came with leadership approval, most would be more likely to stop and see it as not personal or judgmental, more like getting a driver's license perhaps.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's the church's responsibility, do members have to pay for everything?

Members are the Church, one way or the other members are paying for it.

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

What would stop lawsuits is a decision is from a central organization?  Not seeing the difference...except maybe less lawyers willing to take on big corporations, but others would because deeper pockets.

Well, anyone can sue now for anything it seems.

I would think that the person would be told that our leaders now want background checks done on anyone serving in callings with youth or children.  So if they accept one of these callings, they would need to agree to or give permission.  Maybe a general announcement if this was a policy from the leaders in SL.

Edited April 11, 2019 by JulieM

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Give me a break. I asked you, previously, if you had ever paid for background checks to be performed on your own children's church teachers.

Your exact response to that question was, and I quote, "Yeah....that would work. Great solution 🙄"

Now you're not being honest.  I answered "Yes" when you asked me that question:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71749-background-checks/?do=findComment&comment=1209899295

No, you didn't. You dodged the question. Here is the exact post where you replied to my specific question about paying for background checks for your children's sunday school teachers:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71749-background-checks/?do=findComment&comment=1209899186

The post you are pointing to now is about background investigations - it's about looking up people's names in freely available online sex offender registries. 

Those aren't the same thing. 

However, if you are now saying that you have, in fact, paid for professional background investigations to be performed on your fellow church members, then fine. I believe you. 

But I won't tolerate is you calling me dishonest when all I've done is take you at your written word.

 

Quote

I'm done responding to you on this topic.  I know we disagree and I can respect your right to have your own opinion, of course.  But I'm not interested in continuing any discussion with you about it. [...]

Fair enough. 

 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Probably because that could potentially be disastrous if members just randomly started doing background checks on each other [...]

It worked in Salem, right?

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You must have missed his post when he explained he did.

I don't believe I missed anything. I think what was "explained" was technically something different. See my previous post about that.

 

Quote

I find ALarson's acceptance of personal responsibility admirable and I get his desire to have a more comprehensive treatment available to all. If I believed it worked without detracting from better efforts, I would be gung ho.  

I'm pretty much in agreement with this sentiment. As I said at the beginning, if the church were to implement a background check system I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. However, I think the reality is that background checks are largely a waste of money - money that could be better spent elsewhere. The question isn't just one of cost - one must consider the opportunity cost as well.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

It's the church's responsibility, do members have to pay for everything?

The church is composed of members, so it's members paying one way or another.

 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't believe I missed anything. I think what was "explained" was technically something different. See my previous post about that.

 

I have decided the reason his "you could not be more wrong" sounded like a clear cut explanation to me is because no way would I have offered to go ahead and pay for others in the ward if I hadn't already tested out the process, whatever it was.  He did offer, as well as said yes to using the sex offender service so the totality of his posts read to me as "I paid for background checks myself".

There is nothing in his comments I can see to suggest he was dodging the question, even if he wasn't explicit at times. That seems to me an inappropriate assumption.  He knew what he meant and sometimes that makes us assume we are being explicit about stuff that isn't actually explicit.  And it was explicit to me though I can see how if you didn't make the same assumption I did ( you don't offer to pay for things you haven't tested out yourself), it might be less definite...but not all the way to dodging.  That feels like your baggage. :)  we all got that and I so get not understanding things the way others claim they wrote it.  I spend much my time going back to previous posts and thinking "how did they get 'that' from there?"  I assume a lot of that is from my own baggage.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am trying to imagine people's reaction if they know you have run background checks on them.  I would hope most understand and like that you care enough about everyone in the ward you want to share them.  But there are a lot of sensitive people out there and .I can see many assuming you think they are capable or even probable they are an abuser even if they see you doing it to everyone.

And I can see that as leading to anger and your kids getting blowback.  There are some who appear to be even offended the Church is going to two deep and protesting this means it is being taught that every man is a predators, etc.

Oh, I don't actually think it's a good idea. Somebody taking it upon themselves to be the ward witch hunter would invariably end up fomenting ill-will, regardless of how noble their intentions may be. 

 

Quote

I think if it came with leadership approval, most would be more likely to stop and see it as not personal or judgmental, more like getting a driver's license perhaps.

Having leadership approval could very well make the idea of being subjected to a background investigation more palatable. I'm not certain that's the biggest hurdle though - it seems as though there would be a myriad of logistical / legal / practical problems that would all come flooding in once you started getting all the information.