I am a volunteer at a PA rail museum. Last weekend I was asked to submit a PA Child Abuse Clearance. I passed with no problem. I, however, wonder if it was even necessary and the law interpreted over broadly. I have no contact with unescorted children while operating or giving tours. I can also see this being an impediment to recruiting new members. How are other museums handling this issue?

This is likely like the 'Virtus Training" now required for people who will be teaching Sunday school to children and youths in the Catholic Church. Consider it a form of plausible denial and proof of due diligence "should any problem or issue arise".

You don't know if you will or not. Picture this you're walking through the shops, carbarn, whatever it is you give tours of, and you find a lost child wandering alone. Suddenly, you're in contact with an unescorted child.

This is standard stuff, at least in WA state, for every organization I volunteer with. Same with a general background check.



Only to those who are convicted child abusers. I'm not coming up with much sympathy for them. In some cases, organizations can make accommodations so that they can still contribute to the organization.

This is the standard response to anyone questioning their freedom and privacy being taken away.

I don't see how it's freedom or privacy being taken away. You're 100% free to not volunteer there if making sure you don't have that kind of record is an issue to you. You don't have a right to volunteer anywhere you're not wanted. A donation dependent, family event oriented rail preservation group would be wise to exclude people with child abuse records. That is one thing they definitely do not want getting into the press or social media if an incident occurs. I know of some people that will not, in any way, support the Union Pacific Museum because they kept a guy with a child molestation conviction around for years. As a result, pretty much any post about them I see on social media includes somebody bringing that up.

This is the "sad but true" version of reality in 2023.

I know of huge numbers of people who have had to confront this issue, from church workers (down to the janitor!) to professional entertainers (kids' party magicians are an obvious example, but then imagine entertainers like Celine Dion or whoever!), from school volunteers to museum docents, from librarians to store clerks. (There are reasons you see few male librarians in public libraries, and not always because it's a "girls' club".......) And if you dare to complain about it, then of COURSE you have to be guilty, hiding something nefarious, etc.

Basically, our modern society has seen it fit to eye ANY person who doesn't actively detest children with suspicion as a prospective child molester. Heaven help you if you are male, you actually LIKE interacting with young people, and worse of all VOLUNTEER to be there! "Guilty until proven innocent"--and THAT'S what rubs many even innocent people the wrong way, with good cause.

I had been told of one rail museum that had quietly pulled one volunteer from interaction with the public because of rumored over-interest in young people, and who eventually quit the museum because of that presumption of guilt without evidence (which, of course, only confirms the "guilt" in too many's eyes). They didn't have to warn other museums, because he didn't have transportation to go to "competing" museums.......

There's no easy answer to this. Trust me when I say that all manner of society is suffering from this attempt to erase any risk of harm anywhere.

It's all about the lawyers. No group wants to even risk having someone interact with kids who probably should not. If some person messes with a kid, they aren't who the parents will go after; it'll be the group. That's where the money is.
Good, bad or whatever, that's the deal. I had to go through it at Chehalis and distasteful as I found it, that's the world we're in today.

Hopefully folks here can see past the utter _--+-+(&#==π•¥ of a recent post and understand that YOU need to be prepared for some &-&)+ing Lawyer hoping to further their career - either as a politician or a thief - at your museums expense.

Where I live, the State Police certification is REQUIRED by every school district for everyone and has a nominal expense. Literally, it's no big deal!



Please please please consider offering to pay that nominal expense for folks who successfully complete the certification ...

Sure it's a sign of the USA spiralling the drain, but. . . . .

Have you ever worked for a large bureaucracy?

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT!!!!

Brian

So… the “freedom” you’re arguing for is for convicted sex offenders to not have their convictions be known to the organizations they’re working with? Guess we’ll have to disagree on that.

Actions have consequences. They gave up the “freedom” to work with kids when they did the crime.

Police record checks have been necessary for volunteers for groups like Boy Scouts for going on 25 years around here.

Of course, that's not what I meant.

Anytime freedom or privacy is taken away the argument is "if you have nothing to hide why do you care" - this is argued for police searches, TSA Security screening, background checks, etc.

My point is, you shouldn't have to prove you are innocent in order to volunteer at a railroad museum.

After spending a couple days in Amsterdam, I was damn glad that airport security was on the job because of all the (not necessarily harmless) weirdos running around. I was even more damn glad because when I was flying to Guatemala City all the time for work, the airport screeners told me that NOBODY WAS CHECKING CHECKED BAGGAGE. Don't know about anybody else, but I don't want to fly on a plane which gets hijacked, or, perhaps blown up by a bomb in a suitcase which wasn't x-rayed...

Granted, my point is a bit OT for this thread.

Of course, that's not what I meant.

Anytime freedom or privacy is taken away the argument is "if you have nothing to hide why do you care" - this is argued for police searches, TSA Security screening, background checks, etc.

My point is, you shouldn't have to prove you are innocent in order to volunteer at a railroad museum.[/quote]

It may not be what you meant, but it sounds like what you meant would include that. It also comes across as being entitled to volunteer wherever you want and whatever organization you land on shouldn't be entitled to cover their ass and check to see if you have a gross record. Lumping that in with antiterrorism security measures and a requirement for a whole lot of jobs is a little out there. A seemingly eager volunteer with a prior record that nobody checked on having an 'incident' on their property or at their event could doom a small organization and splash its membership with embarrassment. It would seem much more sensible for those organizations to block a liability or possibly lose out on some potential volunteers rather than let 'em all in and possibly get blindsided by one person's very bad decision and have all that work ruined.

So you'd rather mix in the potential sex offenders and child molesters with the people who are truly innocent? All because you have to submit to some background checks that the organization doesn't end up knowing about anyway? All the group cares about is that you pass the checks, they don't get specific details about you or your life.

I’m not the one who started this thread. I honestly can’t remember if I had to do a background check while working at a tourist railroad or not…. I know I had to take a drug test but that was for FRA covered service.

Anyways - it’s the George Carlin argument - they have convinced us to give away large amounts of our freedom and privacy for the illusion of safety and security. You’re welcome to think otherwise :)