And this is exactly why we adore you
1 Like
I was thinking âwhat do the rules and by-laws sayâ about refusing membership. But thatâs probably silly.
1 Like
Background checks would be a good idea. Simply signing the 'space up for a Public Data membership and having someone run a few basic searches would be a good idea (and doesnât cost very much). But running lots of searches on lots of applicants (especially with common names) can turn into a full time job pretty quick.
Changing membership structure could work too. Instead of âtake a class, get accessâ make it something like âyou have to work with an established member/mentor for the first 30 days after you train-in to a committee area.â Possibly add a membership discount for established members who log verified mentoring hours.
1 Like
The bylaws only really apply to members (and the org in general), and thus donât apply to âeveryone else in the worldâ (non-members).
The rules do cover non-members, but basically just saying they must follow the rules (e.g. donât set stuff on fire). So the board can vote, without notifying the person, to ban a non-member forever because that person has no rights with regards to DMS.
Thatâs the âcan weâ part of the discussion, and the answer is basically âyesâ. The âshould weâ part of the discussion is clearly much more complicated, but my personal position is pretty simple, ânoâ.
2 Likes
If you do a background check I would suggest:
- Criteria screened for must be defined: types of crimes/behavior, how old, etc. Arrests vs convictions (strongly suggest later). Person agreeing should know what is being reviewed so they can decide to submit or not.
- Have these reviewed by an outside non-DMS member. If no issues they, they send DMS and OK. This keeps the individuals check private and outside of DMS. We really only want to know if there is something or not. DMS doesnât want to be a keeper of such data, which will include a SSN.
- If item found, decide how to proceed. Send a simple denial stating that something was found, exact item unknown. If they want to appeal, then full report will be provided to the BoD as part of their appeal.
If DMS does this, the entire membership should be screened. Otherwise it doensât make sense to allow 2,000 members that are unscreened but just going forward applies. Also, how often is re-reviews done of entire membership.
While I like the idea, I think it is also fraught problems and I think a background check will put a lot of people off and create a lot of expense. Limiting it to say just people on/running for the BoD, select Appointed Officers, or with admin privileges to say QBO could be done. Have reports sent to our attorney, if no problem found, then notified okay. Again privacy maintained until thereâs an issue.
6 Likes
Currently, we canât even be bothered to get a picture of a new member much less a background check.
We have several options, but as an organization we donât have even the basic security infrastructure in place.
-
No tailgating. I know itâs not possible to force everyone to badge in at a door without a guard of some type. When there are lots of people at the space, I can move freely around the space without a badge because thereâs always someone coming or going through a door. We donât have a culture of asking people to badge in.
-
Have pictures taken at onboarding so we can possibly match up to nefarious actors.
-
Force localized badge access for most tools.
-
Pay for a background check, but there are many many problems with this. There are people that would fail a background check, but would be good for the space. There are people that would be bad for the space and pass a background check.
We already have pictures through the waiver. so for the vast majority of DMS pictures are already on file.
Good points!
This is where such a process would make the most sense - members in positions of trust. Otherwise it would be tremendously expensive and surely result in a nontrivial fee passed on to new and prospective members.
3 Likes
The background check debate has an interesting history here at DMS.
Points and counter points can be found here:
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/membership-growth-for-expansion-would-this-lower-the-bar/34184
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/incredibly-troubling-pattern-of-less-than-excellent-behavior/41130
1 Like
Theyâve got your drivers license and your residential address, so sending the police should not be a problem. That said, I still do not see why DMS shouldnât have the right to politely decline requests for membership if there is a demonstrated history of âmembership issuesâ.
Not sure this has anything to do w/ any BoD.
Threads are marked âMembers Onlyâ.
And you donât have your green dot. 
1 Like
Youâre right. Talk mustâve locked itself down. Definitely not related to anything anyone in particular did.
5 Likes
Background checks for us, I think are dangerous,very slippery slope. What does it actually achieve? Makes us feel better? Does it actually lower the risk of theft, I dont think so. Someone may not have a record because they havenât been caught or are using another alias/Identity.
What are the down sides?
Cost us more money, read- you, I or the gerneral fund. Is it worth that cost? The cost that it might keep someone from stealing a drill or other item?
Cost us members, by people not wanting to submit to one. If we make all members submit, we may loose quite a bit of member because they feel they shouldnât need to submit to one.
Hypothetically If someone was say 16 & they got caught stealing, 2 years later they canât join because they have a record? They may have just stolen just that once & got caught, now they are a productive member of society. How do we set that threshold? Do we get involved or have an appeal process? What volunteer hours will that take up? The reports dont tell you what they stole, just the range of cost of what they stole. Sure we could do FOIA to find out what exactly, again at what cost?
Lets expand on the D&O, should we not already have policy in place that keeps checks & bounds with them? Sound like we should. Did Bernie Madoff have a criminal record before being caught? No, not that I can find.
We have to look at both sides of the coin.
Iâm not saying Iâm for or against, we need to tread lightly with extreme caution.
Issues can be dealt with on an individual basis.
Perhaps we should look at a disciplinary group/committee, selected by our peers.
4 Likes
Iâm not opposed to the idea of background checks for officer/director/chair positions. For instance, we really wouldnât want someone previously arrested/convicted of manufacturing PG1 or PG2 drugs to be the chair of science, someone who canât legally own a gun being the chair of hatcherâs, or someone who canât legally drive (because of say, DUIs) to be head of automotive. Mostly because that kind of thing would be a potential PR disaster.
6 Likes
-
We are not a public library.
-
We canât tax everyone to reimburse our losses and replace equipment.
-
Unlike the government, we get to choose our citizens and arenât accountable to any of them until we select them as members.
-
Thereâs an old Yiddish saying, âFool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.â If someoneâs already proven theyâre willing to break ethical rules for personal gain, I say we show them the door.
As much as Iâd like to advertise that weâre âa felon-friendly institution,â it might put-off some from joining.
DT
4 Likes
We donât want the technical liability of processing this stuff. For BoD or officers maybe, but not the membership at large.
Way too much complication, cost involved, then protecting the records etc in an org where basically only myself and @yashsedai run most of infra at this time. We have way too many other things on fire.
4 Likes
I understand your concern and Iâve thought about that as well. I think it would be appropriate for directors, officers, certain volunteers, but members probably not.
1 Like
I thought Allen already handled the background checks