Membership applications will be discussed at a meeting of the full board? Is an inqusition and thorough background check really required? Is there some kind of criteria the board will see it to impose on guarantor members and ensure that everyone comes up to scratch, with a culling program for those who fail to pass muster? Come on. 2008/9/10 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> -- "But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams." -WB Yeats

On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 01:08 +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote: Well, those doesn't "required" a CRB check. It's a question of whether the board or the community decide that it would be in its best interest to obtain one. KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

Friends, If I may add a comment on this? I think you are in danger of breaking the law in requesting a CRB from a candidate. As far as I know an employer, organisation or licensing authority can only ask someone to apply for a CRB check if they are or will be working in a position listed in the Exceptions Order to Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I think elected volunteers have the same protection in law as paid employees, and being nosey isn't a valid reason in law. I am the CEO of a UK children's charity, and have been on the board of a total of ten companies. I have also been a CEO of seven or eight companies with large retail databases. I have never been asked for a CRB. Some of the charity's employees get CRBs (ones who are put in charge of children) but these things are not generally used for this kind of role. Our trustees are not CRBed. Andrew Cates (aka BozMo) On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Ross, That's right AFAIK but I think we should not view CRB's as a "nice to have, so why not". I am no lawyer either. But the law in the UK protects people who have come out of prison against discrimination. For this reason CRB checks are limited to people who need them for valid reasons, as listed. Some organisations do take a very liberal view of what "in direct contact with children" means and hope that they will win trial by tabloid if they get caught (since ex-prisoners do not have much popular support). But you should not regard CRBing everyone as being "safe, just in case". That's misuse. Overuse of CRB is as dodgy underuse of CRB checking. In these circumstances I would say the correct route is to appoint the board without CRB checks but get them to approve a CRB policy with checking as necessary before people undertake activities requiring them. Andrew =============== On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Ross Gardler <ross.gardler(a)oucs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

Andrew Cates wrote: Absolutely, I'm only providing what little information I have so that people can decide what they want to do. "safe by misuse" is an important point hence the *voluntary* nature of the CRB checks. It meant that nobody was singled out as being different in respect to CRB checks. I should also state that the board felt it was important to keep any requests not to have a CRB check private. Nobody (other than the board) would have known if someone had refused. Ross

http://www.crb.gov.uk/ Which level of CRB check? And what is the cost per person of those checks? Gordo -- "Think Feynman"///////// http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///

2008/9/10 joseph seddon <life_is_bitter_sweet(a)hotmail.co.uk>uk>: I had a feeling the woman from the charities commission wasn't entirely sure about what she was saying... Perhaps this is a matter for the board to talk to their solicitor about.

We have a candidate objecting on principle. I make no judgement at this time on whether they are a good candidate or not.

2008/9/10 Andrew Cates <Andrew(a)soschildren.org>rg>: CRB requirements are becoming a contentious issue at present - the required and suggested checks were written to be tabloid-outrage-friendly, but could take in about a quarter of the population if carried out to their fullest extent. So I strongly suggest making sure you get this one exactly right. - d.

I believe the two main issues would be fraud of any kind, and also if on the violent and sex offenders register. _________________________________________________________________ Make a mini you and download it into Windows Live Messenger http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354029/direct/01/

2008/9/10 joseph seddon <life_is_bitter_sweet(a)hotmail.co.uk>uk>: I think fraud would disqualify you from serving on any board by law (if it was recent enough), so it's just the last two that are relevant, I expect.

Where have you got that idea? They're free for volunteers (the agent you get them through may charge a small fee, but I think we can even get that for free if we shop around).

Just so people know it can take up to 6 months prior to having your CRB check done to clear and you have the certificate. I know that my fiancee had to have one done back in June for her new course that she was doing at college and she still hasnt recieved the certificate to say that she has been cleared although the CRB has been run. Chris > Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:56:29 +0100> From: shimgray(a)gmail.com&gt; To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Refusing CRB check> > 2008/9/10 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:> > I just got off the phone with the charities commission (should> > probably have done that sooner and saved all this discussion!), and> > the woman I spoke to didn't think CRB checks would be required just> > for handling the details of children, they'd only be required if the> > trustees are actually going to be in contact with the children (AGMs> > and things don't count, since those are all in groups). Anyone that is> > going to be going into schools, or similar, would need to be checked,> > of course. She did recommend that the charity have a specific policy> > saying that trustees wouldn't have any contract with children (without> > being checked).> > This sounds sensible, and is pretty much what I was about to recommend :-)> > Bear in mind that we're not talking about people who will come into> contact with children; we're not talking about people whose job is to> handle the details of children; we're talking about a situation where> people will occasionally handle a small amount of personal information> which *may* include the details of a small number of children.> > If nothing else, the CRB checks are expensive, time consuming - people> often work for several months before their checks clear! - and also> require additional infrastructure to handle (what do you *do* with the> CRB disclosures once you've got them?). It makes sense to leave them> until they turn out to be critical, just in terms of getting the> organisation up and running quickly and simply and cheaply.> > [I speak as someone with a CRB clearance, incidentally, but not an "on> spec" one...]> > -- > - Andrew Gray> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk&gt; > _______________________________________________> Wikimedia UK mailing list> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org&gt; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l _________________________________________________________________ Make a mini you and download it into Windows Live Messenger http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354029/direct/01/