On Dec 16, 2007 8:31 AM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
A non-profit organization
with roughly a million dollars in cash and equipment isn't "tiny".
Small, maybe, but not tiny. A big mistake was made entrusting the
operation of such an organization to someone without properly
investigating her background.
Many small charity or volunteer organizations don't do detailed
background checks. It's only very recently that schools started doing
it with staff and teachers and volunteers around here. I know of
charities which haven't done checks on anyone on staff. I know a
number of companies that haven't checked anyone either, though some of
the ones I worked for and worked at as a consultant do.
There may have been an assumption that the contract or employment
agency conducted a background check.
In some cases, a contract or employment agency may do a check, and
miss something. I've seen that happen, a criminal record later turn
up outside the time scope of the check (11 years ago, with a 10 year
check).
Maybe the principle of "assume good
faith" is being relied on too heavily here. We are told a process is
in place to make sure it doesn't happen again, but there doesn't seem
to be an acknowledgment that such a big mistake was made in the first
place. No one has stepped up and taken the blame, and I think there's
a lot of blame to go around. I guess legal considerations make it
difficult. But I also think there are some people who really don't
understand how negligent they were.
I have seen Jimmy and Mike and Anthere step up and accept responsibility.
Accepting "the blame" is more complicated and presumes that someone in
the Foundation did something actively wrong, as opposed to a passive
mistake.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com