background check

[Pastor Bill]

I have no problem with criminal background checks, As and EMS worker in the state, I have a criminal background check and driving record.

For Camps I see it could a few problem,

1. Would the checks be done in time to get workers ready for camp
2. What about last min workers needed?
3. What if for some reason they get a incorrect report how would you be able to make that right.

I also think that Pastors and thier staff should go thru the same check but I think they also should go thru a credit report. I know of pastors that could not take care of their personal checking account, yet we put them in charge of a whole churches bank accounts. I know of pastors that wanted to be moved to stay ahead of the bill collectors. I think that department heads need the same thing as well as the clerk. It is only making sure we are good stewards of all things.

I agree those 3 things should be addressed, but they aren't that hard to address.

As for pastors I don't know that I agree, I wouldn't assume the pastor has access to the finances that freely, I don't know about others here, but I don't. not because I could not be trusted, but because I don't want to be. I am aware of where we stand, I am provided reports on how money is spent, and well consulted on it before it does, but the less I have my hands on the actual checkbook or offerings, the less opportunity for suspicion and I've seen churches torn apart by rumors of pastors padding their pockets.

I have a qualified church clerk, and another qualified member who audits monthly. We are in close communication and I feel like I've been informed even when they catch a minor addition mistake (the last one I think we were 11 cents off, and I was informed, then called back when she found her mistake.

My wife and I had problems financially in the past, and that would show on a credit report, we are doing better now, and are pretty much debt free (just regular everyday bills, but no loans or credit cards).

I don't know that this should be a requirement for pastors, it would probably do more to embarass good people than to prevent problems.

[Full Quiver]

Just answer the question Billy. Why not? HQ officials have made off with cash for decades yet no background checks. Let's check the volunteers to the ninth degree and allow the paid officials to go unchecked; yep, that makes alot of sense.

Shellie, I don't think it's about not wanting to get checked or being afraid of being checked but it's the simple fact that is is absolutely none of CoGoP's business what their member's credit looks like. For the past 20 years CoGoP has been hell bent on becoming progressive if not liberal when it comes to doctrine and spiritual issues but NOW they want to pry into people's credit.

[TC]

OK while I agree that everyone at sometime may have some issues that would be a neg on a credit report. BUT Bouncing checks, have several bills in collections or judgements against you is not a good thing and for that to happen usually it has gone thru several stages that were unsuccessful.

It is not that a pastor has "access" to money all the time but I have seen many churchs that the pastor has a limited access to an account that could be a problem. And most of the time that would only be if he had a sticky finger problem.

My thoughts were if the pastor had a history of bad decisions with money do you really want him making decisions like where to invest the church money. Yes the pastor is not the only making the decisions but I think we all can agree that the people on the board or committee were most of the time appointed by him and ususally do what ever he wants.

[ecmckinley]

I hope this doesn't add to confusion, but please allow me to answer some of the questions that have arisen.

1. Tennessee State Office completes a "Criminal Background and Sex Offender Registry" check on all prospective ministers, all individuals working with children in our youth/children's ministries for the state.

2. If a local church wants to do these checks, we will do it for the cost of $9.00 per worker.

3. As an act of leadership, I submitted to the first background check, followed by my state staff and district presbyters. Pastors will follow next.

4. I asked the Business Committee of the State Convention to bring this before the convention, and it was accepted without objection.

5. I personally do the background checks, and keep both the applications and the results in a locked, fire-proof container that only I have the key to.

6. I DO NOT do a credit check on anyone. If we ever change state treasurers under my administration, then I will do a credit check on that individual, since they are handling our money. However, they will have to agree to it first. If they don't agree to a credit check, then I won't appoint them.

7. Driving record checks are done on anyone driving a church van/bus. Imagine this scenario...."a bus drivers has an accident and a child is hurt or killed. When the law suit follows, and it will follow...one of the first question asked by a good lawyer will be, 'was their driving record checked?' If it was NOT checked, and the attorney finds multiple traffic violations such as reckless driving, speeding, or DUI, how will we morally or legally defend ourselves?" For this reason the check must be done.

8. Finally, since implementing this background check requirement, I have found there were several arrests, guilty pleas and convictions for criminal offenses that the state office had no knowledge of.

In conclusion, my dear friends, while we want to trust everyone, we simply cannot afford the safety of our children to be compromised. This has nothing to do with control, but everything to do with our priority...our children.

I hope this helps you understand that my action had nothing to do with an insurance company, attorney or lawsuit...but my implementation of this was done as an effort to protect the ones I love so much.

I have recently written and submitted a CHILD ABUSE POLICY STATEMENT to the Administrative Committee, which was accepted and will be forwarded to the General Presbyters for implementation.

God bless, and now I will return to the "Kingdom of Lurkdom."

[Shellie]

Thank You, Brother McKinley.

[Full Quiver]

God bless Brother McKinley!!!

[jinjer]

I guess everyone is reading into this what they want. The major points that I have made are to not give everything over to a company that does not hold itself or its employees responsible for gathering and looking at MY information. We submit to background checks as well as financial disclosure and check every year for my husbands work. I had to have a background check for work. However, from my previous experience with the company my church hired, you can rest assure that I want to know who is liable when dealing with MY identity. As Dolfan stated, if it is on the form and you sign it you have agreed to it, whether or not your organization is asking for that information.

Jinjer

[ecmckinley]

Jinjer,

I agree with your point. That is why I do this all personally, and keep the applications and results under lock and key.

Should the company doing the background checks fail, then it would certainly be on them to deal with all the fallout and liabilities....all we can do is to do our best to be good stewards...including the protection of folks privacy.

By the way, I forgot to mention earlier...after we made this step in Tennessee, the General Presbyters made the decision that all new ministerial credentials will NOT be issued unless the applications include proof of a background check. This is intended to be a proactive move. We ARE trying to raise the bar. God bless.

[Billy n NC]

Just answer the question Billy. Why not? HQ officials have made off with cash for decades yet no background checks. Let's check the volunteers to the ninth degree and allow the paid officials to go unchecked; yep, that makes alot of sense.

Shellie, I don't think it's about not wanting to get checked or being afraid of being checked but it's the simple fact that is is absolutely none of CoGoP's business what their member's credit looks like. For the past 20 years CoGoP has been hell bent on becoming progressive if not liberal when it comes to doctrine and spiritual issues but NOW they want to pry into people's credit.

Full Q, I dont know. Not my job or decision to make. But let me ask you this question.

What Difference Will It Make? Uhh If they decide to check volunteers and not paid staff. That is there choice. But as you can see in Bro. McKinley post above.

By the way, I forgot to mention earlier...after we made this step in Tennessee, the General Presbyters made the decision that all new ministerial credentials will NOT be issued unless the applications include proof of a background check. This is intended to be a proactive move. We ARE trying to raise the bar. God bless.

Its just a matter of time. Its the world we live in.

And If you will take a deep breath I will reinterate that the post that started these two threads was about Camp Staff. Not pastors or paid staff.

It is what it is...

And from the above post to Shellie I see that you are OOOZZINNG with animosity toward Headqtrs. What, did you get left off an appointment list somewhere...? you seem very upset over things you have no control over.

What Diffference Will It Make?

[Full Quiver]

Billy, I never have been CoGoP but with attitudes like yours I am glad for it. You flat footed told Penny that everything would be alright. what kind of ministry is that? You want her to willingly do this but for the life of you can't understand why HQ staff needs to do it.
Sure TN is doing it, voluntarily, but I have yet to see you say here that NC should do it. Got anything to hide or no someone that does?

[Billy n NC]

Billy, I never have been CoGoP but with attitudes like yours I am glad for it. You flat footed told Penny that everything would be alright. what kind of ministry is that? You want her to willingly do this but for the life of you can't understand why HQ staff needs to do it.
Sure TN is doing it, voluntarily, but I have yet to see you say here that NC should do it. Got anything to hide or no someone that does?

North Carolina Should Do It. Feel Better..

And yes I told Penny that it would be alright. I spoke with who I needed to speak with. Got my answers. Will be sending the form in the next day or so.

[Faith rider]

Dosen't the Bible say in 1 Tim. 3: 7 something about a bishop ( and that should be for any minister) must have a good report without, to me that means he should have a good reputation and a good creit report, out side the church as well as inside the church, and should not be having checks bouncing. I once went into a store, and they had posted returned checks, and I saw a minister name that I knew, and I ask the store owner had he contacted the man, and his reply was, several times, but he won't come and make it right. To me, that is bringing a reproach on the church.

Now concerning background checks, Yes. But it should be done as Bro. Mckiney is doing it.

I do have a problem giving my SS # out, even though the company claims to be secure. I try to protect my other numbers, especailly with all the internet & scam thiefs out there.

I have always protected my creit rating, never bought anything I couldn't afford to pay. Thank the Lord, he has helped me keep it with a high rating.

I do recall a former overseer asking those that were going into pastoral work, if they had a problem with him checking thier credit, whether he did or not, he wanted to feel them out, if they said yes, I have a problem with that, he told them he would pray about it, and they were pass over.

[dolfan]

Bro. McKinley's got it right on the nose.

Not having anything to hide is not the point. Having something to look for is not the point, either, in terms of finances. It is simply a principle that we all protect personal financial information and only releast it to the people who legitimately need it. So, instead of "I have nothing to hide, so look", it should be, "we're not going to look so don't feel as if you have something you should be trying to hide."

As I said before and now again: financial background checks are wholly proper when people are in control of money; otherwise, they simply are for snooping.

[one love]

Bro. McKinley's got it right on the nose.

Not having anything to hide is not the point. Having something to look for is not the point, either, in terms of finances. It is simply a principle that we all protect personal financial information and only releast it to the people who legitimately need it. So, instead of "I have nothing to hide, so look", it should be, "we're not going to look so don't feel as if you have something you should be trying to hide."

As I said before and now again: financial background checks are wholly proper when people are in control of money; otherwise, they simply are for snooping.

good post!!!!!!!!!!

[crispfin]

Why dose the camp need to do a credit report?

EEP!