In a 10-6 vote May 27, The Center’s board of directors approved a proposal that would require all prospective board members to undergo either a criminal background check or to sign an affidavit stating they will have limited interaction with youth, and no direct fiscal responsibility. The issue of background checks first came before the board last September, when it was announced that the procedure would be necessary for The Center to get liability insurance coverage at a reasonable rate.

“When this issue was first brought up it was presented to me that if we didn’t have background checks, the doors would close,” board member Lisa Rhodes said during the May 27 meeting. “I thought, that’s all there is to it, we have to do this, we can’t close the doors.”

After an intense debate in September, where many board members questioned whether the criminal background checks were necessary to obtain insurance, the board decided to defer voting on the issue until they could further investigate their options.

When told previously that board members of the San Diego County YMCA aren’t required to undergo background checks, Jim North, The Center’s insurance agent responded, “I suppose The Center could elect to make that kind of a stipulation, but … say there’s a problem and they put a claim in. Well, the first thing the company is going to say is, ‘You know, they had interaction with this person.’ And then the other issue is the false claims … made by a client, volunteer or an employee….”

In the weeks leading up to the May 27 vote, four proposals for handling the issue of background checks were submitted for consideration. Fred Sainz, who was in favor of background checks, and Richard Woulfe, who was opposed, submitted the leading proposals.

“None of the proposals before you require or mandate criminal background checks as the only alternative,” Sainz said, presenting his proposal calling for background checks or the signing of an affidavit.

While Sainz’ original proposal called only for background checks, his amended proposal added the option of signing an affidavit, in which a board member could opt to restrict their contact with youth. This proposal was sent out to board members via e-mail at 10:27 a.m. on the day of the vote, a point that was protested by Woulfe.

“We had a meeting last week and I was handed this proposal and I would like to know why, now, affidavits are a part of this process,” Woulfe said. “We had an agreement last week that this was going to be the proposal voted on.”

Kevin Tilden, then board chair, responded by saying that the person who submitted the proposal could amend it at any time before the vote. Woulfe questioned whether board members had the opportunity to review and understand the affidavit process well enough to vote on it.

“People who don’t have the information can vote or abstain; that is our process,” Tilden responded.

Sainz did not explain why the affidavit option had been added to his proposal on the day of the vote.

Woulfe’s proposal called for board members to evaluate new applicants and verify their references, but he made the distinction that board members are there to set policy to guide The Center, not to interact with its clients.

“The goal is to have an application process that protects policy volunteers,” Woulfe said. “Our board members are policy volunteers. We set policy. Yes, we do attend functions where youth are present and where elders are present, but we are primarily policy volunteers and there seems to be some disagreement on that.”

The issue of background checks drew a small crowd of people who wished to speak out on the issue during the public comment portion of the evening. Speakers are typically allowed three minutes each to present their concerns and voice either support or opposition to the issue being voted on, and it is standard practice at all meetings for those in opposition to speak first.

“Generally the way we do this is we have the people who are in opposition speak first,” Tilden said, introducing the first speaker, who happened to be his partner, Philip Diamond. “We have a speaker who needs to leave by 6:45 who is in support, so if the audience would indulge me, I would like to have that person speak first.”

“I am a financial supporter of The Center — I know many of you on the board have been to my house for numerous events,” Diamond began. “I do have a significant conflict of interest, which is the chair of the board, Kevin Tilden, is my partner and has been for a number of years.

“If you can honestly say you know everything there is to know about a potential board member, … then perhaps a recognition system would be okay, but in this day and age I doubt anyone has that knowledge.”

Diamond added that even though other gay and lesbian centers across the country do not require background checks, he felt that it was important for San Diego’s center to set the standard by voting to instill them as policy.

Jan Vincent spoke out against background checks, saying, “The idea that the decision has to be made with so many question marks is my biggest question mark. Why the big rush?”

Among the questions that still have not been answered are: Who will be in charge of conducting criminal background checks?; Who will have access to the information?; and What will they be looking for?

Dr. Fritz Klein, a leader in the local bisexual community, compared criminal background checks to a form of McCarthyism, saying, “From the outside I must tell you it looks like there is some question of egos here and some question of cronyism here.”

A common theme among the supporters of criminal background checks for board members was the notion that if all Center staff and volunteers are required to have the background checks, why shouldn’t volunteer board members have that same requirement.

“I was shocked and a little bit dismayed to find that you, The Center board members, are not required to undergo the same level of scrutiny as the most entry level employee or volunteer,” said Bob Nelson, a staff volunteer at the Hillcrest Youth Center. “It doesn’t seem right to me somehow that an entry level employee or volunteer should undergo the scrutiny of a background check … when those who hold the true authority in the organization are not required to do the same. I think it sends a bad message about your board being better than the rest of us.”

After the proposals were presented, non-presenting board members had an opportunity to comment on the various proposals.

Dale Kelly Bankhead of the ACLU responded to some board members and speakers during the public comment period who felt that the criminal background checks were an invasion of privacy and a violation of civil rights.

“The bill of rights is a restriction on government enterprise, so that really is not an issue here,” Bankhead said, defending the criminal background checks. “The most important thing to remember is that no rights are absolute. They have to be weighed against other rights and that’s what we have to do.”

She suggested a two-prong test to decide whether the checks were appropriate, asking “Is this necessary to do?” and “Is this the least intrusive way to do it?”

“Clearly it is [necessary] for at least some volunteers, and I feel very strongly that we should ask no more of non-paid volunteers than we ask of ourselves,” she said, adding, “ Fred Sainz’s plan … with the affidavit approach is the least intrusive.”

There was also vocal opposition to the background checks from other board members, specifically concerning fears that the policy would keep members of the transgender community and minorities from applying.

“I think the most impacted by these issues are the transgender community, which I represent,” Julia Legaspi said. “I have to say that my record is clear, but I don’t want to relive the past. It doesn’t matter what my birth name was. I have some issues in the past that I don’t want to relive in the present and I think that if it’s going to compromise my position in the board, sometimes we have to make choices and this is one of the difficult choices I need to take a stand on.”

Murvyn Callo, who also serves on the board of APICAP, spoke out on behalf of people of color. “I have always opposed this purely on the fact that this becomes a barrier for people of color to apply for board membership in our Center.”

Todd Gloria added that in regards to insurance requirements, “I have been very involved in this process and been to many subcommittee meetings … and I am not convinced that this is something that we absolutely have to do.”

The voting process for the four proposals went in three rounds, with the lowest two vote-garnering proposals being systematically eliminated, until the final two proposals were left. Voting in favor of background checks with an affidavit option were Geri Bone, Robert Gleason, Robert Hirsch, Richard Valdez, Dale Kelly Bankhead, Jennifer LeSar, Fred Sainz, Joe Valenzuela, Leandro Viana and Elenore Alickman. Voting in opposition to the proposal was Murvyn Callo, Todd Gloria, Robert James, Big Mike, Richard Woulfe and Lisa Rhodes. Abstaining were Julia Legaspi, John Laird and Kevin Tilden.