That’s news 2 me, since when?
More than one person is doing background checks. You’d be shocked at some of the things members have done.
2 Likes
Indeed. PeopleSearch and other online services offer unlimited trial specials of like $20 for 10 days to as low as $0.95/each for public records searches. You can see who’s got a criminal record, where they live, relatives, where they work and a whole lot of other information. In 10 days you can scan all of DMS without anyone’s knowledge. Heck, just google yourself and see what you find. Pretty much - privacy is a thing of the past.
I doubt it,
2 Likes
Requiring a background check seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Makerspaces thrive off skilled people that can not work due to legal issues? Between felons that cannot get conventional work and the skilled retirees looking to stay busy I’d say that’s half the people in the building any given day. (I say that humorously and with a wide swath of conjecture) Economic pragmatism here, really, when a person is excluded from the job market they’re going to go SOMEWHERE to be useful.
More interestingly, legally speaking, what’s the high / low bar on an offense?
-
Deny a former air force chemist from contributing their skills to the science committee because maybe they made some 2ci in a bathtub and got caught?
-
What if some trust fund kid genius wizard gets into a bar fight? This trust fund kid that has written billing systems for YOUR water municipality? We just turn away their extensive experience in computer science because we’re nervous they might creatively somehow have a bar fight at the Makerspace?
-
What about the print maker that stole a car once? And they’re like an expert on typesetting? And they can draw up custom stencils like nobody’s business?
-
What about the expert hairdresser that makes six figures doing the kind of hair coloring that goes viral on the internet on a regular basis? And she got held up with a bag of weed one time outside Burleston county? Do we turn away that level of talent? Over a bag of weed?
-
Do we ban a sex offender that’s an expert wood furniture builder? even though the dallas makerspace has very few kids on any given day? And they continue to maintain their self reporting?
Every story I’ve mentioned above is true. FYI None of these people are at the Dallas Makerspace.
Requiring a background check seems like a solution in search of a problem. Have we banned people for being actively dangerous before? Yes, and the Board doesn’t hesitate to do so. There’s a wiki page documenting such. Seems effective enough already.
making bathtub research chemicals requires a level of skill set that doesn’t come from thin air and doesn’t disappear in a person. I wouldn’t mind someone with a drug charge teaching me chemistry. at all. in fact i might even prefer it.
and, it’s only bad pr if the hypothetical journalist does a hypothetical spin. The dallas observer write up that was done years back? The journalists networked with the mascots. Probably at some of the same events i’ve been to in the past. We would have to have an EXTREME outlier mascot networking with an EXTREME outlier journalist to cause the type of PR you’re referring tto.
All by it’s lonesome!
If we were ever doing background checks (which I think is largely a waste of time and money), I’d do it the same way many employers and landlords do it - by using a service and never seeing or taking possession of the records. The agency is given a set of criteria to evaluate and returns a binary result.
4 Likes
Well, this thread is sufficiently in the off topic weeds. Thanks to everyone that participated in the thought experiment of possibly codifying the idea that we don’t block members before they are members even in the hypothetical instance that they admit they will not follow our rules prior to joining. When I started the thread I wondered how far off my particular feelings were to the group.
The comments from those running the day to day tasks seem to feel it is needed in some way. Those that don’t tend to run the day to day space seem to feel it isn’t as necessary and more value the rope model, giving an individual the opportunity to prove via action over words. I’d say at this point this thread is done. Get those final words in, as I wouldn’t be surprised to see it locked.
1 Like
Interestingly nobody has expressed any concern over how accurate those background services are.
2 Likes
To a large degree they rely on accurate self-reporting of residence locations. They don’t have access (that I know of) to national databases (like those maintained by FBI) so end up doing searches in individual counties as reported by the applicant.
Someone with a conviction in some podunk Montana county but who didn’t actually live there would probably skate through a background check with no problem.
I checked on myself and discovered that 10+ people associated with me have criminal records. That a sex offender may live near me and that their information may not be accurate, and I shouldn’t make decisions based on it, and is no substitute for due diligence.
Details for only $34.79.
Does the space have $68,000 to spare for this crap?
3 Likes
Well, clearly there’s no consensus on background checks. Then let’s at least update/create a membership application that requires disclosure of felonies, crimes involving theft, and/or pedophilia. And we’ll make lying on their application a cause for membership termination. This way, at least we can tell the kids who the pedophiles and thieves are.
2 Likes
There are no plans to start getting a background check for all members.
3 Likes
So I’m not ashamed to say I had a background check done on a handyman that was going to do a few days of work in my home.
Up blipped a red flag - he liked punching his wife (several times) and doing some not so fancy check fraud. Several arrests spanning ten years.
Anyways told him not to come. No idea if he turned over a leaf. I really didn’t care. I personally didn’t want to invite him into my home for any reason.
It was a monthly subscription service I could do as many As I wanted. I did background checks on people I went on dates with, my whole family…ya real classy of me to do I know. Judge away.
No opinions here from me just wanted to relay you can get one that’s monthly for a flat rate if it’s needed.
6 Likes
So it is funny to think how we feel on this topic.
I think we all cautiously want to stop people who admit to us personally that they are going to violate the rules. However, when we don’t have the first hand experience, and build scenarios where we get the info from others, we become much more willing to let the person in our group and allow their behaviors to decide the actions against them.
But background check sits. Sharing the full background check with the group is not viable. But, are there disqualifying features so egregious that we as a group would not want them in our space if we could stop it?
Examples,
- Should we allow known pedophiles or those with pedophilia related charges on their record in our organization?
(Me personally, NO) - Should we allow a previously convicted murderer in our group?
(Me personally, NO) - Should we allow a someone convicted of identity theft in our group?
(Me personally, NO) - Should we allow someone convicted of rape in the organization?
(Me personally, NO) - Should we allow someone convicted of a hate crime in the organization?
(Not sure what these would be but, personally, NO) - Should we allow Trump Supporters in our organization? (We need them all, Make DMS Great Again! Just kidding as the other categories are pretty serious)
But, should we be taking steps to defend our group from some of these kinds of people given the incredibly open and accepting nature of organization? We currently do not check any of this and it wouldn’t likely be to onerous to do so.
@uglyknees’s statement really made me think about this as I’ve become pretty close and some what protective of Nicole over the years. If I could tell her the guy I’m introducing at DMS doesn’t fall into the groups I listed, I would feel better with that knowledge.
Would anyone else?
2 Likes
FYI, we aren’t looking to implement a background check system on members. But we did survey the tools out there. The only thing that would work in such an environment as ours is where you give them parameters and they send you back pass/fail. We would not want to store any sensitive data like that.
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
3 Likes