Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Volunteer Screening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parks board approves volunteer screening policy pending formal definition of “volunteer”
Summary
The Columbus State Parks Board approved a policy package requiring screening and abuse-prevention training for volunteers and contracted staff, with implementation contingent on staff returning with a clear definition of “volunteer.” HR will seek legal review.
The Columbus State Parks Board voted to accept a draft policy requiring criminal-background screening and initial and annual abuse-prevention training for volunteers, contracted staff, pool staff and interns, but requested that staff return with a formal definition of “volunteer” before full implementation.
Board members said the policy is meant to tighten safeguards for minors and vulnerable adults who use park programs. Board member Karen Cody moved to approve the policy as written “once we define volunteer,” and Board member Mark Ellis seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote; those on record at roll call were Roger Farrell, Karen Cody, Mark Ellis and Matt Haydon.
Board discussion described the policy’s proposed steps: a written application, an interview, reference checks and a criminal-record background check performed by a vendor that conducts statewide checks, plus required initial and annual abuse-prevention training. Board members said coaches and some program partners already undergo background checks through youth-sports programs, but one-day volunteer groups and recurring community partners (for example, master gardeners or corporate “day of service” teams) raise questions about how broadly the policy should apply.
HR staff member Beth Igni provided the draft language, which was adapted from an existing city policy, and will take the board’s feedback to city counsel for review. Board members asked staff to clarify whether short-term groups that are on-site for a single day would be exempt or subject to a lighter-touch acknowledgement and whether contractors who supply umpires or other services would be required to provide evidence of screening from their organization.
Members cited practical limits in background-check databases that do not always return out-of-state records and asked staff to identify a vendor or procedure that reliably checks criminal records across states. The board directed staff to define “volunteer” (for example, by duration or by the nature of interaction with minors) and to return with the clarified language for final adoption; no implementation timeline was set in the meeting minutes.
The board’s action was procedural: approval to move forward with the draft policy pending the requested clarification and legal review.
