Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Camron, I see you feel very strongly about this, and that's fine - you certainly have a right to feel that way. But what if the state you're working doesn't use that criteria for denial of an officiating license? And you somehow found out by accident a new official, who just moved to the area, had a murder conviction 20 years ago, and now wants to be a member of your association and work HS games. Would you refuse to work games with that person? What do you tell others about your refusal to work with that person? Do you feel strongly enough to let others know not to let this individual be an official? Which is more important to you - your feelings that a former murder should never be around kids anymore for the rest of his/her life, or do you respect the state association's right to select the criteria and that person's right to privacy about his/her past? Would you "grin and bear it" and work that other official anyway?
|
Yes...I would refuse...as an independant contractor, that is among my rights. And yes, I would tell others...about the persons conviction and that I have chosen to not work with them. Just becasue an organization has a hole in its policies doesn't mean you have to ignore issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
I don't think the above questions would fall under "paranoia", but rather they are legitimate questions involving how people react to information they would or should not normally have access to.
If you want to change the state criteria and make murder or manslaughter a reason for denial, or any other type of conviction, then so be it. But I'm not sure it's "paranoia" to think others can use the information outside of proper channels to forward their own line of thinking, even if it was to do their best to embarrass the individual to keep them from officiating.
|
If it is information the public shouldn't have access to, fight to have the information taken off the public record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
Finally, I still have yet to hear of any particular incident involving abuse or crime against a child by an official using their position as an official, much less multiple incidents.
|
I have, several pages ago, provides exactly such an example. Not from hearsay...from a local example of a person I have worked games with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy
...
As mentioned before, what problem are we addressing with background checks for officials? And why does the official have to bear the cost?
|
What problem? An opportunity to repeat their offense. It may not stop it completely but it does close one door. And why the official? Becasue we're independant contractors...it is up to us to meet the qualifications for the job.