2008/9/10 Sarah McCulloch sarahmcculloch@gmail.com:

If AndrewRT intends to undertake a board role that does not require him to need a CRB check, I fail to see why he should be thrown off if he does not have one.

Membership applications will be discussed at board meetings with the whole board, he has no choice but to do tasks which require a CRB check.

2008/9/10 Sarah McCulloch sarahmcculloch@gmail.com:

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.

It should be pretty much a formality in almost all cases, but it's a formality that still has to be done (the board could delegate it to a committee of board members, but I don't see why they should have to go to that hassle - it would require separate meetings, notifications, minutes, etc.). Even in spite of that, any board member is going to have access to the records and could get the details whether they were in the meeting where they were discussed or not.

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.

I agree the final decision is the board's (possibly with the advice of their solicitor and the charities commission), I believe that's what I said in my first email...

Andrew Cates wrote:

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.

I'm no lawyer, I can only speak from experience.

It was a requirement of the (public) funding of a social enterprise working with children (in this case very young children) that all volunteers *who came into direct contact with children* were CRB checked.

It was *not* a requirement for the board members to be CRB checked, although the board agreed to implement a voluntary CRM checking scheme for all volunteers.

Ross

At 10:33 +0100 10/9/08, Andrew Cates 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

I was CRB checked a few years for some freelance work I did with homeless people. Working with directly children *and* vulnerable people requires checks.

Gordo

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.

That surprises me "trustee of a children's charity" is explicitly included in the list of people that should be (or, at least, can be) CRBed. I would suggest that the board seek the advice of the charities commission before making a final decision on CRBs.

At 11:10 +0100 10/9/08, Gordon Joly wrote:

http://www.crb.gov.uk/

Which level of CRB check? And what is the cost per person of those checks?

Gordo

I see that this question has been answered in this thread already.

Gordo

Unfortunately I have to. I will attempt to explain my reason as best i can. Firstly, those members on the board, even on the interim board will be handling membership forms/details. There will be members joining,of a young age and I would not be happy with someone who hadn't had a check preformed on them, handling such information.

I agree, but I think the board can make that decision (really, it's their decision at the end of the day anyway, anything we decide now is pretty much advisory - the board are the ones liable if it all goes wrong, so they have to be able to make the decisions as they see fit).

Secondly, it would create more work to have to change the details of the director mid way through the process. We all saw the issues with trying to get details updated. I would rather have this cleared up now before the election than when we are trying to push through incorporation.

That's why I said they should make the decision sooner rather than later, ie. before incorporation. That way they can just take person number 6 and carry on. I really don't see the point in trying to decide now because the election will decide for us (the only way he could win is if people don't think it matters, in which case we won't get a consensus to disqualify him).

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).

I have just come off the phone with CRB. They said that it is recommended in legislation (they didnt say what one though) that adults handling the details of children have checks done on them, however it is left to the discretion of the organisation they work for. All in all, it is down to the board.

_________________________________________________________________ Get all your favourite content with the slick new MSN Toolbar - FREE http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354027/direct/01/

Out of interest, are you sure the "CRB" wasn't a third party helpline selling CRBs? Personally I would not rely on advice from any government agency over the phone, but if you send a written request the written answer is quite likely to be reliable.

Anyway for reference as recently as three weeks ago there was another report of people abusing these checks, see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7548467.stm but there are plenty of better summaries around. Perhaps Nacros would offer us free advice since they seem to be expert at it.

It isn't a big deal unless we have a good candidate objecting on principle.

Andrew ========================================= On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:

2008/9/10 joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk:

...

...

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).

I have just come off the phone with CRB. They said that it is recommended in legislation (they didnt say what one though) that adults handling the details of children have checks done on them, however it is left to the discretion of the organisation they work for. All in all, it is down to the board.

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.

---

Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

Likewise, I object in principle.

On 9/10/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:

...

It isn't a big deal unless we have a good candidate objecting on principle.

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

---

Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

I don't have the time to reply to the posts today on this issue, but I'll just point out the current wording (perhaps can be better worded) is that the candidates are willing to undergo CRB (if the board determine [possibly with official legal / CC advice]) that it wises its members to undergo such checks. It does not state that the members will definitely go through CRB. It also does not state under what cases a member will be disqualified as a result from those checks. (i.e. petty crime? murder? ...)

KTC

2008/9/10 joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk:

...

It also does not state under what cases a member will be disqualified as a result from those checks. (i.e. petty crime? murder? ...)

I believe the two main issues would be fraud of any kind,

I find it highly questionable if that would be legal.

and also if on the violent and sex offenders register.

That might be legal if you could show that they were working with children or vulnerable people. And no shut in computer nerds are not considered vulnerable.

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...]

2008/9/10 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:

...

If nothing else, the CRB checks are expensive

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).

I'm surprised by this - I looked into getting one for someone a year or two back and kept seeing fees on the order of £70. I hadn't realised the volunteer distinction was made - it may be a more recent thing.

Good to know, though.