"HMGS passes amendment 11 - Start of a Star Chamber?" Topic

11. Modify Article VII, Officers by adding the following as a new Section 4:

Section 4. Candidates for election to the Board of Directors and individuals proposed as Convention Directors will be required to undergo a background check in accordance with such background check policies as the Board shall determine and as it may amend such policy from time to time.

Rationale: This change is in accordance with the direction of the membership as proposed during the Annual Meeting of the Members in July 2015 and approved by motion to go before the membership at the General Membership meeting held March 6th 2015.

Seems reasonable to me.

Yes they have had time travel for a number of years now. Nothing really new.

Need to see the policy to form an opinion about their intentions and procedures. My opinion at the moment is the BoD will never get around to documenting a policy much less share it with the membership. And it will be abused. And it will be a contributor to all sorts of conspiracy thinking. But if they are really using legally protected privacy data for the background checks, someone on the BoD will eventually screw up and publically release private data and then the fun will begin. I don't think the BoD, personally or organizationally, is mature enough to handle privacy data without screwing up.

I think a background check on anyone that has access to the purse strings isn't a bad idea. Probably not necessary for anyone else.

Our local PTA was looted by a nice Christian lady who is serving 3-5 for embezzlement.

Volunteer organizations in PA are now required to do criminal background checks, child abuse clearances and fingerprinting* on all their volunteers.

This doesn't seem to be out of line with that given that two of the main conventions are in PA. It might be a good idea to get all convention staff to do it as well.

*the fingerprinting is only required if the volunteer has not lived in the state of PA for the last 10 years.

That's pretty repressive, and very unfortunate.

Sounds like a good reason to move the cons out of PA actually – I imagine that's going to make getting volunteers more than a bit of a hassle.

I don't think it will be too different anywhere else (other than maybe the fingerprinting bit, that seems hardcore and I'd balk at that).

Yeah, the FBI criminal background check including fingerprinting would be a deal breaker for me. That's ridiculously intrusive just to volunteer at a con.

Hell, you could make the case that anyone who GMs for the convention was a volunteer… And if they offered games for kids they'd need to be fingerprinted.

Wow. Well intentioned certainly, but that's a 'road to hell' law if I ever saw one.

So when do the conspiracy theories begin?
Does the BoD now have the power to exclude candidates from the ballot? And then claim privacy?

My group defenestrated ourselves from a "club" whose officers appointed the BoD which elected the officers. Or was it the other way around? "What, you want politics?"

Let's not put the cart before horse. Before you know we'll be worried about Green Helmets invading Lancaster, or a Host of other unfounded rumors I've heard for the last twenty years I've attended the cons.

It's for the BoD and CD. There's no coup d'etat, no Con Volunteer Death Panels to scare away what little help there is. Don't start casting your minis in gold to play in your historicals-only zeppelin communities. The only "next level" they're taking this to is possible compliance with state law, but I admit ignorance to the details.

The whole gamut was required of my wife when she became Classroom mom for my daughter's school. It did catch the three out of fifty PTA volunteers who actually had recent petty theft, embezzlement, etc charges.

Certain people are prohibited by law from working around vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly. These background checks are required by law. There is no legal compliance issue here and the BoD clearly says so. If there was, the matter would not even be up for a vote because it would be a state mandate, and you don't vote on those.

To be transparent and fair, the BoD needs to articulate the purpose of the background check, as well as what the disqualifiers for office are.

Actually the game masters would not be considered to be volunteers or wouldn't have to be. The new law implies no policing responsibility for the organizations. The GMs would be outside "groups" coming in to do their own thing. They would determine their own level of involvement with children and their need to have clearances.

I'm not saying that the new law isn't onerous or ridiculous. All I'm saying is that it is the law. It may actually be a good reason to move the cons out of the state if it is enforced.

Hopefully they will be reasonable about it. If applied broadly it could be very repressive.

As far as the conspiracy theories go, I heard a good one about Jade Helm… :D

So if this is a good idea (which it isn't) then tell me:

1. Who initiates the check?
2. Who all has access to that info once is is obtained?
3. How and with whom is it shared?
4. How long is it kept?
5. How is it purged and who verifies that?
6. What happens to HMGS if the info is "accidentally" released?

This is a solution in search of a problem, or in fact, might create a lot of its own problems.

"Our local PTA was looted by a nice Christian lady who is serving 3-5 for embezzlement."

So a backgound check on her prior to assuming her position would have revealed what exactly? Not everyone with bad intent has a past that can be documented.

The fact that HMGS, Inc is not incorporated in PA negates the need for any PA laws to be applied to it. For instance, would the Baltimore Ravens have to conduct this check when they come to Pittsburgh to play the Steelers? I don't think so.

Free legal advice is worth every penny you pay for it.

@Pictors: The law you refer to is part of a child protection package that specifically states that the law is for occupations that have a significant liklihood of having regular and routine contact with children, it is not a blanket law that covers all volunteers in the state.

Does the BoD now have the power to exclude candidates from the ballot? And then claim privacy?

will be required to undergo a background check in accordance with such background check policies as the Board shall determine and as it may amend such policy from time to time.

So no, they don't have the power to exclude anyone from the ballot. However, the background check policy could apparently vary from a forensic audit of all school transcripts (K-Postgraduate) to a vouchsafe from a reputable bartender. One wonders if such policy as determined will be applied to all candidates in equal measure.

I do think it's a step in the right direction. It would quite useful to know if a candidate was convicted of embezzlement or tax evasion before…wait a minute…

Many people have had background checks as a result of
employment, active military service, application for
firearms purchase permits, etc., etc.

Why not, if the check is reasonably current (to be
defined), allow those in lieu of spending effort/time/
money to revisit ?

And, OBTW, if 'convicted felon' is adopted as a reason to
exclude….my oh my….

The Thin Edge of the Wedge

I would put it to you, that this is the ‘thin edge of the wedge'.
link

The important part of this, was not the details or limitations on what was enacted, it was that something was enacted to allow background checks. It does not matter how small or little is being asked for the background checks, the fact is that now there are some background checks and this will serve as the basis to expand them in the future. These were not being done in the past, now will be; and can serve as a base to expand in any direction a current board sees fit, without a vote from the membership.

People do not even fully know exactly what they have agreed to be allowed to be done, since no details were provided.

Some that was not done in the past, will now be done, and probably expanded in the future.

Ed:

Those you listed wlere from employment. This is for a hobby club. Let's not lose perspective.

enfant perdus – very well put. While not really objecting to these background checks, I find the statement "will be required to undergo a background check in accordance with such background check policies as the Board shall determine and as it may amend such policy from time to time" somewhat disturbing. Anytime a policy can be changed at the sole discretion of and in any manner deemed appropriate by an individual or a board, you are inviting tyranny. As others have mentioned, what does the board do with this information? Is use of the information part of the policies that can be changed at any time and in any way? In the past people have been given "clean bills of health" by background checks. Even people obtaining security clearances have passed thru with "flying colors". That did not stop these people from committing crimes and betraying their country. I do not like the way this amendment has been written.

Walt Disney went through bankruptcy.

Drugs are one of the most common motives for theft. Perhaps we should have the entire BOD drug tested and release the results. :-)

If only the policy had been in place sooner:

link

"The law you refer to is part of a child protection package that specifically states that the law is for occupations that have a significant liklihood of having regular and routine contact with children, it is not a blanket law that covers all volunteers in the state."

It is actually any direct contact with children, not regular contact. Most organizations that have volunteers that have any contact with children are making their members get them.

So, for example, a church where they have volunteer Eucharistic ministers would have them get their clearances because children will come up to receive communion.

There are no requirements that they do this, it seems it is largely up to the organization to determine which of their volunteers need it. However it seems like most organizations are having all of their volunteers get it if there is even a slight possibility of them interacting directly with children.

Also the PA criminal background check is not private information. You can run it on other people if you want.

Pay $10 USD each and you can check out any criminal history that members of the BOD, or anyone else, has in Pennsylvania.

epatch.state.pa.us/Home.jsp

I am required to run background checks for anyone requiring access to the Arms Room in the Armory. That includes people already in the Service.

As a high school volunteer here in PA, I have to have a background check.

It's an organization doing it's due diligence.

C'mon. Gimme a break.

Eric

Again, HMGS is not a PA corporation. But why let the facts get in the way of a good discussion.

As an e.g., most fishing clubs will require volunteers working at kids/family fishing events to have had a police reference check. For anything I run where there's any chance of kids being around adults without the kids' parents/guardian/caregiver being right there, I'm required to have the volunteers vetted.

Eric, glad to learn that you're clean. :)

Probably should asked you before you came to my class.

For those unfamiliar with Pennsylvania news, this is all fallout from the terrible case of Jerry Sandusky. Politicians wanted to be perceived to be "doing something" about child abuse, so they extended the breadth and depth of background checks. Though I had thorough checks when I was hired, I had to go through the whole humiliating ordeal again. I even had to be fingerprinted a second time, just in case they changed.

Never let good management get in the way of a minority report background check…

Protecting the children?

If protecting the children is the true objective, why not exclude them from being on site?
Then they would be very protected.

If protecting the children is the true objective, shouldn't everyone on site have a background check done (members, GMs, attendees, convention site workers, anyone who enters onto a convention site that a HMGS convention is taking place)?
How can children be protected, if background checks are not done on all of the adults that are on site?

My Answer: Protecting children is not the real objective for the background checks. It is an excuse to get people to vote for the amendment based on their 'feelings' about the issues and appeal to their emotions to get the measure passed, in spite of the facts. I would put it to you that The Real Objective of the background checks, is now whatever group happens to control the levers of power within HMGS, now has a new tool to dig up dirt on opponents, hyper focus on any mistakes opponents may have made in their lives, collect information, build dossiers, silence opposition and collect information to use against any opposition. The best part is that HMGS can now even justify setting up a ‘Directorate' that will collect the information and maintain it for their own use, all paid for with HMGS funds.

"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the man come and take you away"

Crosby Stills Nash – For What It's Worth

Who said anything about protecting the children? The language of the Bylaws makes no such mention.

Maybe they don't want any more white collar criminals or fiduciary ne'er-do-wells having access to the finances. The H does stand for Historical; maybe HMGS-E is examining its own history.

"If protecting the children is the true objective, why not exclude them from being on site? "

I don't think this is something that is reasonable or desirable. We have child friendly gaming and excluding everyone below the age of 18 would remove a fair number of attendees.

"How can children be protected, if background checks are not done on all of the adults that are on site?"

One might ask how background checks protect children at all. Certainly there have been any number of teachers that are in jail now for doing things with their students that had background checks.

That isn't really the issue.

If the reason the board is doing this is because it is now starting to be required by PA law then protecting the children would not be the board's objective, coming into compliance with PA law would be.

"Again, HMGS is not a PA corporation. But why let the facts get in the way of a good discussion."

This is not relevant. KinderCare is not a PA corporation either but its employees and volunteers need to get background checks if they will be in direct contact with children.

HMGS would not be required to get other adults on site to get clearances or background checks because the new law has no policing responsibility to it. Those people are not the responsibility of HMGS, only its own volunteers and if it had any, its employees.

At least that is the way the lawyer explained it to me.

pzivh43 wrote:

"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the man come and take you away"

Crosby Stills Nash – For What It's Worth

Try Buffalo Springfield dude, a few years earlier and only two of the trio that you mention were involved. But still, a good musical reference…

HG: Perspective was lost a long, long time ago. Actually, somebody threw a hood over its head, tossed it in the back of the van, and kicked the crap out of it before they threw it in the river.

Just when you think things can't get more sickening from the HMGS BoD…

Major William: In pzivh43's defense, CSN has performed this song forever, so…………………

Questions that need answers:

Who will perform these "Background Checks"?

Most professional firms that perform this service generally charge between $2,500.00 USD – $3,500.00 USD per person!

What will be the timeline for these checks?

Generally it takes 6 – 9 months for a Professional Organization (One that actually performs this service) to return the results of said checks per individual. So will candidates for office need to make their intentions known at least a year in advance? More? Less?

Did anyone with a brain actually put any REAL thought into this before proposing such stupidity?

Obvious answer to that one!

The information provided by such background checks can never be released publically to the membership, or any other entity as the resulting lawsuit will destroy the organization!

Also, as a point of order, GMs who receive FREE Admittance to the Conventions could technically be considered as "Volunteers" of the Organization depending on just how far a Local DA may wish to pursue any legal action!

So how many years before the treasury balance is run down to Zero?

Well ….. it will be VERY interesting and instructive to see how this all unfolds. My experience in such cases has been to ignore what is said, but to pay very close attention to what is done.

However this evolves, my personal opinion is that 11 either needs to be dramatically re-written to more closely define and circumscribe its reach, or rescinded outright. As it stands, its current loose language makes it a very dangerous potential abuse of power problem.

B

We have routine checks at work and intial checks when first employed. It's no big deal.

You have to pass a background check to "volunteer" to work with the Federal Govt Musuem and Natl park. As of 15 June you have to pass a back ground check to enter an Military base if you do not have a DoD ID card. So I have no problem with HMGS BoD members having to pass one too…

SFC Retired

The amendment was put up for a vote by HMGS members and I believed passed by a wide margin.

1700+ ballots were mailed out and only approx 350 members voted!

Elections have consequences?

Folks like Historygamer should have campaigned against this and other amendments…and for their "move H'con back to the Host" candidates during the HMGS election cycle?

Elections have consequences?

I proudly voted…

SFC Retired

I'm not sure I am in favor of Hcon moving back to the Host. But it has to move somewhere, that's for sure, unless the organizaiton is content with it becoming Cold Wars in July – which makes no sense then keeping it at the FCC given the cost vs attendance by all.

In regards to this dumb move for background checks for both BOD and CD candidates – I guess we'll see what becomes of it. More than one poster here indicated it was directed at one person in particular. I don't know any more than that, and it was interesting that the Treasurer said he was against it and did not vote for it. Too bad the BoB minutes are now hidden away and no one can really see them now. Not that anyone apparently even noticed that either.

Look the other way citizens, nothing to see here. Move along. :-)

Background checks are all well and good when the checker is a responsible organization.
But when they are used to determine eligibility to run for a seat on the Board of Directors of an organization that at some times has shown … questionable responsibility….
And the BoD determines the use of the results.

This smacks of a scheme to purge the field of those seeking to challenge the status quo.
"You want to change things? Well, you have a bunch of parking tickets and were once late on a VISA payment. Sorry. We can't have the likes of you on the Board."

"Who said anything about protecting the children? The language of the Bylaws makes no such mention.

Maybe they don't want any more white collar criminals or fiduciary ne'er-do-wells having access to the finances. The H does stand for Historical; maybe HMGS-E is examining its own history."

Read somewhere that the rationale for the amendment was because of a GM who ran a game for youths and is said to have inappropriately contacted these youths via email afterwards. That is the stated reason.

More likely it was for the reason you suggest. Moot point now.

TRUgamer:

That makes no sense, given the motion was just for potential BOD and CD applicants.

For GMs running kids games I could understand, but potential BOD and CD positions? It smacks of politics to me.

history gamer, I also mentioned firearms purchase permits
for which background checks are required (my Son in law
is a deputy and does it routinely).

Those are NOT job related.

However, my personal opinion is that if there is a
requirement IN LAW (irrespective of the state) for
such checks and the sitting BoD can demonstrate
that, fine – it needs to be done to comply with
THE LAW.

Otherwise, another item driving the nails deeper
into the coffin…

Background checks for something as absurd as this is beyond idiotic. How about stop taking yourselves so seriously with pointless Orwellian nonsense and get the registration system fixed so the line moves faster than a glacier. Or institute some level of GM support.

I know "kids" is a magic word that is supposed to justify any lunacy, but in the history of the organization, has there EVER been any problem with ANY child being in ANY victimized or endangered?

How about dealing with the pile or REAL problems and stop acting like a bunch of jackboots.

Once again!!!!

Who, or what organization is going to be contracted to perform these checks?

Are "current" BOD Members going to be among the first to undergo Background Checks?

They can not now exempt themselves!!!!

What Type of checks are going to be done? Just Criminal? Full Blown Background?

There are Federal and State Laws guiding such checks not to mention rules, guidelines, and Forms! I hope the BOD has actually consulted an Attorney, and actually sought legal advice in this matter, or they have opened themselves up to one really interesting legal conundrum. One law suit is all it will take!