What would DMS do with a background check?

DMS General
#1

Continuing the discussion from Prosecution of the DMS thief:

I’ve had the same thought as @pandabob about background checking new and current members. I’m personally not sure where I stand on the idea and I’m starting this thread to vocalize ideas and questions on the subject.

  1. What would DMS do with a background check?
  • Stop certain people from being members?
    • We currently don’t have any system in place to stop people from gaining membership to DMS. If you apply and pay the dues, you are a member.
  • Single out members with a record and watch their actions while at DMS?
    • This kind of feels like a police state idea. I personally think this would hurt the atmosphere at DMS
  • Is the background check public record?
    • I would think if we paid for a background check that it would be a record of the corporation. How do we handle access to this kind of information. If we don’t want our addresses out there how would we feel about what could be made public with a background check?

Personally, I think I’m going to line up on the side of no background checks. They open up some scary questions in my mind and I don’t see the processes to handle those questions within the group currently. Plus, we have only had 2 really bad eggs so far and in a group as large as ours I think that says a lot. I’m also not sure had we had background checks that either member would of been blocked based on their background check.

Edit: @wandrson asked for clarification on the two bad eggs. I’m speaking of the thief and the member that was mentally questionable and had to have the police remove him.

Prosecution of the DMS thief
#2

I’m a bit shocked on the news of the theft. I’ve spoken with the perpetrator multiple times at the space, and he seemed to be a good natured, passionate maker - And while that may be true, it looks like he was also a manipulative swindler, robbing a non-profit.

3 Likes
#3

I think background checks are a good idea but they can be expensive (easily more than a month’s dues, more if the person has moved around a lot).

They could be done much the way apartments complexes do (or used to do): A third party background check firm is provided with a list of disqualifying criteria (I.e., offenses) and they return a binary result based on those objective criteria. They are never aware of more than the prospective member’s name, dare of birth, social security number and gender and thus have no subjective reason for approval or denial.

#4

I have ZERO problems with a background check. If a perspective member has had prosecutions for theft/embezzlement do we want them here?

I have had to get a background check and a credit check for my current job. I also had to have one at a previous job as a consultant plus a government one from the company I was assigned to. I’ve also had state and federal checks run on me for other licensing requirements.

It’s not a big deal, except for the privacy concerns around PII (personally identifiable information) such as SS#, DL#, and more, but you can outsource those to a company that specializes in those and let them handle that data so it’s not in any records the space may be required to keep and/or grant access to by members. You can even shop around and find one that will give a discount to non-profits.

I’m for it. 100% for it.

#5

Are we going to retroactively require background checks on the 1200+ existing members? The odds say at least few have had prosecutions (not the same as a conviction) for crimes you mention not to mention others such as assault, etc…

Bear in mind, that just because someone has had a run in with the law does not mean they are a risk to our property or ourselves today. And many who have no record may find themselves tempted to steal by a change in their circumstances. Further, we allow strangers to roam the build every Thursday night, and to my mind they represent a greater risk, yet none appear to have stolen anything. We should learn from that example as well.

In my opinion, we take this as instructive in ways to improve our security system and then move on.

#6

I agree with @wandrson,
I’m not sure we would better the space with background checks. If anything we have learned from this scenario that when we get the feeling that much of DMS is not paying useage fees or when tools start going missing, then we need to start hunting for the culprit. We also learned that the most likely time for this isn’t late at night, rather it is during the work day when members are not around the space much. With this knowledge we should be more apt to find the culprit.

#7

I also agree with Walter. How many thefts have we had since the removal of the perpetrator? if someone who has passed a background check still wants to steal, they will. Let’s not destroy our faith in people and put our energies to more creative uses.

1 Like
#8

Let’s keep in mind the priors of the thief were probably misdemeanors and not something we’d probably consider invalidating his application for membership.

IMO, there’s no way we would catch more potential thieves than members we’d lose asking for a SSN.

6 Likes
#9

I brought them up not so much because I think we 100% should pursue it, but
because I think it’s a conversation that needs to happen in light of
current events. Think of it as due diligence. It should be that we decided
not to do them rather than have to admit that we never considered them.

IF we were to do them then I think what has been suggested is the way to
go. Have a third party do them professionally and with as little privacy
invasion on the part of DMS. I like the idea of getting a binary result
back from a third-party without any further info that might lead to a bias.

On a semi-related note I can offer this as a personal experience. I once
worked the volunteer sign-in table for a local con an my job was to sit
there and run a person’s DL number against the sex offender database. If
you sowed up on the list (regardless of why…) then we politely declined
their offer to help out. Some of the people on that list are bad people and
they deserve it. Others are folks that got caught having sex with their HS
boyfriend or girlfriend and probably don’t deserve the stigma. So, I get
that it’s a tricky thing.

-Steve

1 Like
#10

And folks should realize that, unlike the rest of us, @pandabob likely experienced direct personal loss from the cash box he was managing for the large format printer in creative arts.

And to second @Kentamanos statement about the people we would turn off for asking for SSN, we would probably turn off even more when we ask them for an application fee to cover the costs of a background check.

#11

I think that background check would be both expensive and potentially discriminatory to people with less privileged backgrounds.

One active criminal in 1200 current and many uncounted former members is a pretty good record.

1 Like
#12

I wonder if we’re heading for background checks being required for
membership. They’re not unheard of for things like leases and a lot of job
applications. Even volunteering for some non-profits require it.

-Steve

#13

There’s the counter argument that some people aren’t signing up with their name anyway

#14

I had the same thought. At this point my personal preference would be to say no for multiple reasons. First we’ve only had one bad egg (we think) so far. Second, a place like the Makerspace could very well offer someone a much needed second chance at learning some life skills and becoming a more productive member of society. Third, there is a cost associated with a background check and that’s not a trivial matter either for the space to absorb, or as a barrier to entry.

#15

I concur that background checks are a bad idea. One they cost money, and charging for them will reduce new member sign ons. Two, in recent discussions, our members have shown a prediliction for liking their privacy, and a background check is quite intrusive. And third, there are a lot of behaviors, that might show up on a background check that would not be a good idea to prevent a member, particularly if they are in the distant past.

In recent conversations at the space, one member alluded to having spent time in prison, and another said they have been jailed on kidnapping charges. In the latter case, it was clearly a non-issue for today’s person.

I am all for catching and punishing thieves; however, I don’t think we should let this push us into becoming too paranoid. Take reasonable precautions, like tagging small high value items, and move on.

3 Likes
#18

Asking for SSN will deter many from joining.

#19

When Finance committee asks for the W9 associated with folks getting Honorariums (for 1099 tax reporting), a pre-addressed envelope is provided and it is mailed to a DMS PO Box that only one person accesses, the paper form is kept locked up offsite and they are not entered into any computer file … so it can’t be hacked. Just as no credit card info is stored by DMS we take strong measures to protect SSN’s.

I don’t think the background checks are really practical and if done, it should be done for all members issued a badge other wise we have a 1000+ member blind-spot.

IF theft continues or becomes a major problem again, which I think this individual was our the majority of our problem, then we need to revisit things.

2 Likes
#20

Ugh. Excuse-making. 99% of people with less-privileged backgrounds don’t steal from others. And if you deny membership to someone with a criminal record for theft, you aren’t discriminating based on their less privileged background. You are discriminating based on the fact that they have no respect for others or the efforts they put into acquiring property.

2 Likes
#21

When I was a sweet young thing, people were interested in checking out my “background”. Alas, not so much lately …

 Chris

:smiling_imp:

2 Likes
#22

DMS has grown larger over the years and reached the point where relative anonymity is possible. With the potential for anonymity comes the potential for thieves. I feel that short of drastically shrinking the organization this risk is unavoidable.

I concur with the notion that background checks, collecting SSN’s, and other forms of overt paranoia will hurt us more than it helps us. I believe that there are other ways we can address issues of theft that do not involve blowback-generating reactions.

2 Likes