Civil liberties are under fire at our Center and the entire community is urged to show up at the organization’s board meeting this coming Tuesday, May 27, to voice their opinion on an issue of utmost importance — whether or not Center board members should undergo criminal background checks.

The proposal to require that all Center board members undergo criminal background checks is nothing new. The Gay and Lesbian Times has covered this issue off and on since it was brought to the public’s attention last September. Now, this coming Tuesday, the issue is on the agenda for a potential vote, with a majority of the board purportedly in favor of requiring a fingerprint check for all current and prospective board members.

While both sides have weighed in on what has become a rather contentious issue, the Times position has remained the same as it was last September: In the case of board members, whose dealings with youth are limited, we feel background checks would be an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Though we understand the litigious society we live in has caused everyone to be on high alert, until a time comes when The Center must either conduct background checks on its board members or be unable to afford insurance, background checks remain an intrusion into the lives of those who desire to serve their community.

In speaking with the Times this past week, several board members continued to raise the specter of Catholic Church abuse scandals that came to light last year. That’s like comparing apples to anchovy pizza. Clearly, Center board members do not have the same direct contact with youth that priests were once afforded, nor should they. Any interaction between board members and youth should be under the supervision of a staff member or volunteer trained to deal with youth and whose background has already been checked — as is the current standard for all staff and volunteers at The Center.

Center representatives said that after board member Fred Sainz contacted 25 different nonprofits dealing with youth at a local and national level, it was found that none of them required background checks. Making our own calls this past week, we also discovered how bewildered representatives from other GLBT organizations were at the mention of The Center’s proposal.

“We do not do [background checks]; we never have,” Scott Wiener, co-chair of the San Francisco LGBT Community Center Board told the Times. “If people on the board know the person, then obviously we have a sense of who they are and if we don’t know the person, we certainly do our due-diligence … to make sure that the person is a qualified and upstanding person.”

“I have never heard of anyone requiring criminal background checks of a member of a volunteer board of directors,” added Richard Burns, executive director of New York City’s LGBT Community Center. “That strikes me as an intrusive requirement and if I were them, I would change insurance companies.”

Representatives of The Center also claim that North said the organization’s insurance carrier, Charity First, is requiring the background checks.

Phoning Bill Johns, senior underwriter at Charity First, at North’s suggestion, Johns said, “I can’t discuss their contract with a third party.”

Jacobs and Center board members were reportedly told by their insurance agent, Jim North, that there was no comparably priced insurance available that would carry the sexual molest rider they currently have on their policy without board members undergoing background checks or — as they now say — Center board members at least signing an affidavit stating that they will have no contact with youth under 18.

However, speaking with several insurance professionals that deal with nonprofits, none had ever heard of an insurance provider requiring background checks for a policyholder’s board members.

North himself even told the Times, “It’s the first time I’ve ever run into [this scenario] quite frankly — and I do business with over 50 nonprofits in town.”

Though Center board members maintained that North had done his homework, shopping insurance wholesalers for comparably priced insurance that does not require background checks, none had asked for the names of the various insurance carriers North said would not provide the coverage without the checks.

Only recently did Center Board Vice-chair Robert Gleason come up with a proposal to form an “official subcommittee” to have board members shop other insurance companies themselves. This is homework that the board should have been doing all along, not merely proposing it for the first time with less than a week before they have committed to putting the issue to a vote (it is worth noting that, according to the California Department of Insurance’s Producer Licensing office in Sacramento, North’s license was inactive from Nov. 30 of 2002 to April 11 of 2003 — according to our calculations, four out of the seven months North was advising The Center on this issue, he was unlicensed).

Perhaps even more troubling is information presented to the Times that former Center board member and current donor Jim Ziegler had requested the background checks. Though Ziegler refuted this, saying he only wrote a letter last fall urging a vote on the matter, when questioned about this several board members said they “couldn’t remember” if Ziegler had requested the checks.

“They were requested by a donor and I don’t seem to recall whether it was Jim or not,” Board Chair Kevin Tilden told the Times. “I did see an e-mail from a donor requesting it. I don’t recall who.”

If Center Board members have such a poor recollection of important board matters, how can they possibly be trusted to keep track of all the needs and desires of our diverse community? And it is just this diversity — particularly transgender citizens — whose civil liberties would be threatened the most by background checks.

After looking into this issue thoroughly, we have ample information not to support this proposal, more than can be contained within the confines of this editorial or even the accompanying story (see page 16). We urge the community to show up at The Center’s next board meeting and let board members know that our community’s civil liberties are more important than the egos of a few privileged community members or the unwarranted fears of select donors.

Though we have praised The Center for pulling itself out of a precarious fiscal situation over the past two years and garnering renewed respect and support from the community, we feel this policy has the potential to seriously undermine the good reputation that The Center has strived so hard to achieve.

The board meeting will be held this Tuesday, May 27, 6:30 p.m., at 3909 Centre Street in Hillcrest.