That's actually a tricky question... I think it's common procedure to not allow anyone with a prior offense involving kids to work in areas where they'd be exposed to them. Ok, that's well and fine, and most folks would agree.

But when you start adding other offenses, where do you draw the line? What if a person has been convicted and served their time? What offenses dis-qualify and which don't?

Take your example of drunk driving... Let's say you've got a retired person who want to help out at the railroad. Back in his early 20's he had a few too many and got caught driving drunk. Does that mean he can't do any work at the railroad? Yes, I know he'll probably never touch the throttle, at least not without all kinds of paperwork and maybe not even then. But what about cutting grass or emptying garbage cans?

It can be a slippery slope...

]

Yes, I suppose it can be, but the primary purpose of a back ground check is an exercise in risk management. I do not believe it should ever be used in absolute terms. It should also not be the only factor in determining someone's suitability.

For us, generally most violent offenses are considered exclusionary for everyday programs. Other minor offences such as shoplifting may allow a person to be involved, but they probably won't be asked to help in the gift shop or to process donations. Even minor drug offences may not exclude someone, but there would have to be a fairly complete understanding of the circumstances, and they probably would be excluded from the running trades program. And there is a vast difference between a conviction from 2008 and one from 1968, especially when there has not been a record of an arrest since then.

And the best example of how discretion can be used to the museum's best interest: using prison crews (non-violent offenders) to clean right of way, or even repair track. They can be segregated from the public and not invited on school days.

In the final analysis, a back ground check is not a complete representation of someone's threat - for instance it usually does not list offences committed in a foreign land or even felonies from all 50 states - but it is valuable information with which to make an informed decision.

--Richard

I think a culture of suspicion and "guilty until proven innocent" is very thoroughly un-American in every respect.

Twenty-five years ago, Americans had convinced themselves that daycare centers run by satanic cults were a Clear and Present Danger to America's children. And collectively, the entire country acted in unison and ferocity against this threat. Ten years later, the FBI reviewed the evidence and determined that all of it -- every last bit -- had been a figment of our collective imagination, a type of mass hysteria called a moral panic.

So went Halloween trick-or-treating... remember stories of razor blades in apples? Those too proved to be an urban legend, but look how it changed America.

John Perry Barlow had a brilliant thesis, "Crime and Puzzlement", where in 1991 he guessed which would be the next four great moral panics for America. Turns out he missed by a bit, but it's still an enlightening read.

The essential point is, moral panics are something that Americans do. And you must be ever vigilant to make sure you are not swept into one, dealing righteous sadism onto a McMartin or a Salem witch.

I would totally agree, but I would also suggest that's when you start heading down the slippery path of passing judgement on folks...

It's one thing to simply say "I'm sorry but a DUI is a dis-qualifying offense for the operating department" and apply that rule equally to everyone. But as soon as you start getting into grey areas based on the amount of time that has passed, and the type of offense, as logical as that seems, it would appear to me that you're opening yourself up to trouble.

If 40 years ago is long enough, how about 20? Maybe 10? Is 5 years enough? Suddenly it's not so simple any more, and you're making judgement calls. Then the burden is on your shoulders.

Meanwhile, what happened to the whole concept of paying your debt to society and moving on? If you disqualify somebody who was convicted as a thief from working in the gift shop (which I can certainly understand and agree with) do they have any grounds to say that you're discriminating against them? What kind of rights do folks with a record have in this type of situation?

I guess this is where the lawyers get involved and advise you of the proper methods.

The comment about background checks not covering things that may have happened in other countries is a good one. But please be aware that there are different levels of background checks within the USA as well. This varies by state but in Missouri you can get a check from the local county, or go to the Highway Patrol and check the whole state, or a more extensive and expensive one yet will be for the entire country. There have been entirely too many cases where groups have taken the cheap route and then employed people with extensive records from elsewhere some distance away, usually in other states. It seems they were just "filling a square" on a form in their heads, as we used to say in the service, instead of really exercising due dilligence. Cost is a deterent to this process and those with criminal intent know it. I'm not advocating for any particular policy, just suggesting that when the subject of background checks comes up that you should ask how extensive it was and what area it covered when looking at using the results.

Yet another angle:

What do you about the stone cold bigot in your midst (who worships Adolf Hitler at home) and who gives many hints that he is not 'properly socialized' ?

Isn't this the type of person who should be sent packing ASAP -before his foul mouth gets the group embroiled in all kinds of trouble ?

I think the overarching question is this: Wouldn't certain behaviors that keep one from employment in the hospitality business have the same gravitas in the musem business ?

DPK

Yes, I am talking about a real person.

Regarding people who have been found (or pleaded) guilty: I was at Railtown 1897 in Jamestown, CA, and got to talking with a woman who was working in the roundhouse. She was there working off her "community service obligation". Miles away in location and technology, I was part of a group visiting the San Diego Trolley maintenance facility; we noticed an area where crews were cleaning the LRV's. Our guide advised us that they were a work party from the county jail, and that we were not to take photos in that part of the yard.
Regarding people with strong political opinions who aren't bashful about "spouting off": this is definitely a touchy area; I would have the department head speak to such persons and advise them to leave their politics at home. This would be especially true if they wear a uniform and/or badge tying them to the museum organization. When you wear attire that identifies you as part of the museum, you are "the face of the museum" and must act accordingly. A matter especially germane to trolley museums is the "National City Lines story" a.k.a "General Motors killed off the streetcars." Whether it's a urban myth, the absolute truth, or somewhere in between is a "hot-button" issue with many traction fans and even some "civilians". If I'm asked by a visitor, I preface my reply with something like, "this is my personal opinion and not an official position of the Museum."

Yes, the burden is on my shoulders, where it belongs. It is one of the most difficult areas of museum management. 99% of the checks that are run through the state - your group qualifies too Bob - come back negative. Those 1% always cause stress, but it is just another step in reviewing an applicant for a job except for these positions there are no salaries or wages, just some really cool benefits:-)

We have passed on applicants because of poor reviews from references, and others because we believed they had poor safety attitudes. We try not to make it personal - and I think we are succeeding - and instead just focus on serving the organization's best interests. And if you think we have unfairly excluded someone, discuss it with me offline. It's not a perfect system, but at least it is a system and in most instances there is provision for reconsideration.

I suppose there is no such thing as paying your debt to society anymore? Once convicted of an offense and after the sentence has been served that person is to be branded for life? Is this not the perfect way to guarantee that the offender would return to a life of crime?

One thing that we must keep in mind is that the current trend in this society is to criminalize more and more activity that once was tolerable. Sexual harrassment used to mean something much more narrowly defined than what it is now. For God's sake we're expelling third graders for sexual harassment because the poor boy kissed a girl on the cheek! I remember carrying a plastic pistol to school once on dress up day, now doing that in some schools would result in CALLING THE POLICE AND ARRESTING THE STUDENT! Where I live, once a person is convicted of a sex crime he is to be branded for life, and are not allowed to live near a church or a school. Did you know that relieving yourself behind a tree or the nearest boxcar can be grounds to convict you of a sex crime? It happened to a friend of a friend of mine.

We must not willingly go along with what we know is wrong. Barring a volunteer from your organization based upon a criminal history, when that debt to society has been repaid, is wrong. People can and do change, but can we change?

Most of the railroaders I've worked with in the past 10 years would be on the offender's list for that! Especially the way that many locomotive johns are NOT maintained, and induce gag reflexes just opening the door. This stuff is often just off the wall paranoia, like the Satanic day care pre-school. I blame overly zealous prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves/running for re-election, and the fact that some law-enforcement positions - like Sheriff - are still elected, instead of appointed, or eliminated as obsolete (I'm thinking specifically of a certain Southwestern law enforcement "character" who has been repeatedly cited for human-rights abuses, but gets re-elected because he's "tough").

No, this is a purely theoretical discussion. I'm not familiar with anyone who has been excluded from volunteering at your organization, or any other for that matter, based on background check results. I'm sure it happens, but I'm not aware of any specific instances.

My comments were based on the same old problem of defining in the grey areas. At first glance this stuff seems simple, but in practice it can become difficult...

IRM's answer to this type of situation is simple. In order to be involved in train operations, you need to have a VALID* drivers license in your state of residence.

This leaves the decision making to the courts, and other state authorities.

*VALID means not suspended, and NOT a "only to work and back home" permit or other similar conditional license, such as the ones that require you to have a breathalyzer installed in your vehicle.

Jeff