adult membership revocation/appeals process

[Lisabob 13]

It sounds as though there are some folks on the board who have experience with the process of removing volunteers, so I'm curious to know whether you have ever run across a case where the BSA's background checks turned up erroneous information on a volunteer, and where that info resulted in the volunteer in question's membership being revoked? I know there's some kind of an appeal process, but I wonder who is involved in that process, and what they consider appropriate counter-evidence to show that there was a problem with the initial background check? From those who may be more "in the know" than I am, what is that review/appeal process really like and how careful are those folks in reviewing the evidence they receive? If the original background check returned incorrect info, how would a volunteer go about proving a negative (ie, that they did NOT do x, y, or z, if the background check says they did)?

 

 

[Secret DE 10]

lisabob,

 

As a DE I will give you a little insight into the process. First, you would be impressed at the number of people who freely admit to wrong doing on their applications. I have seen a situation where one parent admitted to using illegal drugs and in one district I saw an application where a parent admitted to having committed a crime not covered in the questions and it was rape. In those instances, I have to send the applications directly to the ASE and SE for follow-up.

 

Here is what we look for in the forms. Our background checks are done by name and social security number. The SSN basically allows us to make comparisons in areas where an applicant has a common first and last name. As a District Executive I have nothing to do with the background process, but I contact any prospective volunteer with a listed criminal conviction to get specifics. I then notify the ASE that I am processing an application that will return with a conviction. This is where honesty pays off. There are a lot of things you can be convicted of and still remain a Scout Leader. That is, as long as you disclose the issue up front. A Scout is honest.

 

Likewise there are a lot of things that you can be convicted of that the BSA will not allow you to be involved in the program period. A majority of the issues that I hear about (I never know names, only the situation) concern people who have disqualifying convictions they were hoping to hide or undisclosed convictions that would otherwise be okay had they been disclosed.

 

The action taken at that point depends on the Council Scout Executive. In many cases where someone did not disclose a non-disqualifying conviction the leader might be given a chance to explain the failure to disclose. In the case of a disqualifing conviction the SE works with the the CO to remove the person from a leadership position and then define the ways (if possible) that they might be able to be involved with their child in the program.

 

In the end there are a lot of variables to these situations. As I have mentioned as DE's we rarely get much information from the separation process, but in cases where the Council has acted I have seen no abuse of this procedure. I have not seen an such scenario that you are asking about and I think this is largely due to the SSN being used to help identify specific people among those in groups with common names. I am sure that people can and do get removed because of bad data, but it is the exception, not the rule.

 

Secret DE

[Lisabob 13]

Secret DE, thank you for the view of the process from the "inside." Let me clarify first, that I am not seeking information with regard to myself, and second, that I am specifically interested in what happens when something does go wrong in the background check process, and an inaccurate conclusion is reached. I'm reasonably sure you are correct that this is a rare occurrence (anyway I hope it is). However, in the case that this does happen to an otherwise great volunteer, what exactly does the appeals board look at, and who is on that board anyway? Perhaps you can answer this though - I've heard in the past that the checks are run by BOTH SSN AND birthdate? You indicate that they are run by SSN and name - are you certain about this? If that's the case then it seems to opens more doors (perhaps) for clerical error to cause "false positive" returns, especially if someone were to have a pretty common name.

 

I'd prefer not to go too far with specific details here, but this is not a trivial question in our area at this point in time.

[Secret DE 10]

Lisabob,

 

My apologies as it is Name, DOB and SSN. In a case where one person cannot distinguish themselves from another as you describe, I am not sure what they could do. I wish there was an easy answer to the question, but unfortunatly the would probably need to hire an attorney and clear their name. While that is not the greatest solution, it might be on only one available.

 

S DE

[eolesen 10]

I haven't had LisaBob's situation come up in Scouting, but we did have it come up at my company. We process financial related data, and do criminal background and credit checks prior to hiring, and a prospective employee came up as having a criminal record and outstanding warrants in Texas. Rather than pass on hiring him, we brought him in and asked him about it. After cross checking the dates/locations of the so-called crimes, we came to the conclusion that his identity had been stolen by an illegal alien (he has a Hispanic name). All of the crimes listed had been committed while he was in the Army and in another state. Turned out to be one of the best programmers I've ever hired...

[Beavah 205]

Yah Lisabob, yeh need to distinguish between membership revocation and bein' granted membership in the first place.

 

Membership revocation and "black listing" comes after some definite negative behavior or credible accusation.

 

That's a different thing than the background check process, which is pretty much as Secret DE describes (and pretty much the same as any business or other organization runnin' background checks).

 

It's the difference between being fired for cause, and having a background check issue in the process of bein' hired.

 

B

[OldEagle4Life 10]

Secret DE,

 

How about a case of an adult who gets falsely accused of something, say some form of child endangerment. It seems from these discussions the BSA's policy when it comes to these issues would be to act immediately and terminate a leader's membership. But since we've also had several forum members say the BSA is not an investigatory institution, would a leader falsely accused ever be allowed back into service with a unit if the BSA does not do followups on this information themselves. Since I assume that this kind of accusation would be reported to the authorities, would they communicate this information between each other over time, or would the organization lose a good leader for good because of someone trying to get back at someone else?

 

OldEagle

[Secret DE 10]

Old Gray Eagle,

 

I have knowledge of one such event in my Council. After it was determined that the leader was falsely acused, he was reinstated.

 

S DE