There are plenty of jobs that require applicants to undergo background checks of one form or another. As an example, if you want to work in a safety-critical position like conductor or locomotive engineer you need to go for periodic medical examinations and share the results with your employer. In the U.S. railroaders are also subject to random drug testing while on duty, this is not (yet) the case in Canada.

I agree with the concerns around the gradual reduction of personal freedoms and increase in fearmongering across western democracies over the past 20-odd years, but screening convicted pedophiles out of the applicant pool for positions where children will be present seems perfectly reasonable to me.

There still is (or should be) a difference between a volunteer position and an employed position, when it comes to how much scrutiny one gets. In the one place you are fortunate to be accepted, and in the other they should be glad to have you (or most volunteers). Yes, sadly, there are slimy characters who use their position to abuse children (Scouting, the Catholic Church, etc.). As a lifelong bachelor, I sometimes go out of my way to avoid dealing with other people's small children because I don't want even the appearance of impropriety, to the point of seeming unfriendly. When I was growing up in the railfan community, there was a not insignificant pool of closeted gay fans who quietly engaged in what would today be called "grooming" activity. It didn't occur to me for a long time that was going on, and I never picked up on it because I don't go that way (which to me proves you can't "turn" someone gay, or trans, or whatever), and yes, I've always had lousy "gaydar".

I do have some sympathy for the older, now mostly deceased, gay community that had to live in an era when being gay was not just unwelcome, but illegal, and you could go to prison if you were caught even consensually engaging in it. I can't imagine having to live your entire life under that kind of constant pressure.

The actual 'application' in Pennsylvania is the CY113 form (there is also a CY999 to have your results automatically sent to your organization).

The application and its instructions repeatedly refer to 'direct contact with children' with categories including foster-parent application, childcare, schools, etc. The 'ringer' is the one item in PURPOSE OF CERTICIFATION that reads "An individual 14years of age or older applying for or holding a paid position as an employee with a program, activity, or service". From the items before and after, it's pretty clear that the legislative intent was with 'programs, activities, and services' requiring direct contact with children -- not incidental.

The choice under 'volunteer' repeatedly stresses the phrase 'volunteer having direct volunteer contact with children'. I'd interpret that as concerning volunteers who actually deal with children, not those who might accidentally find one strayed into a dark shop area or whatever accidental scenario a child might wander into.

But as noted, this isn't about who will or won't have to work with children; it's about CYA. And any organization with a business model or clientele that cncourages children to visit may be wise to document that everyone on the property who might, as some point, encounter a child under unexpected circumstances should have one of these things on file -- I note that the DHS appears to be waiving the fee for volunteers who need a clearance more often than every 57 months, which suggests to me that organizations are asking for proof dated after an 'offer of employment' has been made.

What I see it coming down to is how the organization considers due diligence. I can easily see an organization offering a 'second chance' to a convicted offender, just as they might to a released convicted felon who has 'paid their debt to society'. But it would then remain entirely contingent on the organization to prevent any incidence of 'recidivism' -- and in this context, the consequences of even accidental contact might disastrous in more than a strictly legal sense.

Please keep your posts aligned with how this topic relates to railway preservation. This is not a platform for arguments and/or rants. There are many other more suitable places online for doing so.

Tom Gears
Moderator

What do you consider to be a "rant" Tom? I didn't consider any of my last post to be anything but contemplated discussion that was at least somewhat preservation/railfanish related. I wasn't stark-raving anything.

The reality of the situation is that all of our endeavors operate in the context larger world.

Time and experience has proven that this type of thing is expected of organizations that work with the general public.

And if you want to work with the general public, you have to meet the expectations of organizations that do.

Meeting the requirements for those expectations may seem like a burden, but honestly, only to the most entitled amongst us. If having to fill out some forms is too much of a hurdle for volunteers, then they're probably not going to be dependable volunteers.

Perhaps these processes are actually more useful than they might seem.

And perhaps people need to take a step back and stop being first order thinkers about things that minorly inconvenience them.