[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This is exactly the sentiment that bothers me. You are, in effect, taking policy that is enacted by a governing body, into your own hands. In law enforcement, those people are called vigilantes. If you truly believe that there should be a longer list of disqualifying charges, then, as you say in the next quote, why not fight to have the policy changed? Why do you get to impose your values unto someone else, over and above what the governing body dictates?
.

Partly because I'm an independent contractor. I get to choose who I will and will not work with. If I were an employee, I wouldn't have such freedom...short of quitting.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

And, if you get to do that, then so should others. What about the person who feels a female who had an abortion should never officiate because they murdered a child?
Or, how about the husband of that woman? Aren't they effectively guilty of conspiracy, and should not be allowed to ever come near a child as well?
.

Again, as independent contractors, we can choose who we will or will not work with...doesn't have to be rational.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What about the assignor who feels any convicted offense, traffic tickets included, reflects upon the integrity of the person, and therefore should not be allowed to officiate?

.

Once again, the assignor can choose who to hire however they see fit as long as it doesn't touch any of the protected areas (race, gender, etc.).

If the assignor feels that a traffic ticket is sufficient to exclude people, that is their choice...they're doing the hiring....as long as they do it consistently.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If you feel my examples are starting to get silly, then why do you get to draw the line over what's important and what's "silly" when it comes to other people's lives? You have a right to control what you do, and you can chose not to work with that person. But it is the telling others about private information that bothers me. It is imposing your different standards over and above what the governing body has already determined.


.

Those governing bodies aren't ruling that the information can be known...just that they don't consider it to be enough to exclude the person. Again, you are calling it private information. It is not. The guilty party might want it to be private but they don't have that choice.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Now here's the part I honestly have a question about - is it truly a public record? Can I go in anywhere and request a full background check on you, without your permission?
.

Most arrests and convictions are public record. My local newspaper lists all arrests made by the city police each week. Court cases are also widely reported in newspapers...not necessarily front page but somewhere.

If a person can't talk about the facts detailed in a newspaper article, what can anyone talk about?

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I did see that, but you didn't say whether that person, who is still in jail, committed the crime as a result of being an official, or was that a person who committed a crime, who also happened to be an official?

Yes, the initial contacts with the juvenile were directly through their position as an official. The acquaintance and initial "relationship" was started in the gym during and/or around the games with him there as an official. They then got together outside of the game setting and the rest is history.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So you don't believe someone who has committed any crime can ever be considered rehabilitated?

Sure I do....but recidivism rates are strongly against them. They're welcome to do lots of things. But for many offenses, they shouldn't be allowed easy access to society's more vulnerable members.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

As I mentioned before, there are crimes I think we all can agree should disqualify an individual from being a licensed official for school games. But it is up to the governing body that issues the licenses to determine what those specific disqualifying events should be. And the information provided should be only about those specific requirements, not about everything.

Can't really disagree there....I'm just puzzled about the complete resistance to background checks. I'm fine with governing bodies doing that job if they are actually doing it. But the lack of the governing bodies doing the right thing doesn't mean that a problem should be ignored.